r 


fam-w  ■  .  v 

......  ■  '  •  '* 


•  ) 


I 


I 


\ 


l 


/ 


UNION  LIBRARY 


\ 


•\ 


r 


s' 


A 


» 


l 


\ 


LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 


©CmOft  COLLEGE 
BUSINESS  ADMIN.  LIBRARY 

INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


FIRST  ANNUAL  MEETING 

OCTOBER  29,  1919  -  -  NOVEMBER  29,  1919 


1 


PAN  AMERICAN  UNION  BUILDING 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  U.  S.  A. 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1920 


HC-T  7 yo' 

■I  4 

14  ^ 


*  »• 


I 


cr^\ 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

President:  Honorable  William  Bauchop  Wilson,  Secretary  of  Labor,  United  States  of  America. 

Vice  Presidents:  Right  Honorable  George  Nicoll  Barnes,  Government  Delegate,  Great  Britain.  Mr.  Jules  Carlier,  Employers’  Dele¬ 
gate,  Belgium.  Mr.  Leon  Jouhaux,  Workers’  Delegate,  France. 

✓ 

Secretary  General:  Mr.  Harold  B.  Butler  (Great  Britain). 

Deputy  Secretaries  General:  Mr.  Ernest  H.  Greenwood  (United  States).  Dr.  Guido  Pardo  (Italy). 

Legal  Adviser:  Dr.  Manley  O.  Hudson  (United  States). 


8 


■ 


c~r~u 


LIST  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS. 


Argentina. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate- 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

III.  —  Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Alejandro  Joseph  Hayes, 

Dr.  Alejandro  Unsain. 

Belgium. 

I. - — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Michel  Lisvie,  President  of  the  Delegation,  Minister  of  State, 
Member  of  the  Chamber  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim,  Professor  at  Liege  University. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Armand  Julin,  Permanent  Secretary  of  the  Ministry  of  In¬ 
dustry,  Labor,  and  Food. 

Mr.  Joseph  Brughmans,  Chief  Inspector  of  Factories. 

Mr.  Desire  Glibert,  General  Inspector  of  the  Labor  Medical 
Service. 

Mr.  Alexandre  Delmer,  Principal  Mining  Engineer. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier,  President  of  the  Central  Industrial  Committee 
for  Belgium. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  L^on  Repriels,  Chief  of  Section  of  the  0ugr6e  Marihaye  Steel 
Works  Co. 

Mr.  Maurice  de  Smet  de  Nayer,  Representative  of  the  Textile 
Industries  on  the  Central  Industrial  Committee  for  Belgium. 

Mr.  Georges  Dallemagne,  President  of  the  Federation  of  Chemical 
Industries  for  Belgium. 

Mr.  Roch  Boulvin,  Director  General  of  the  Railway  &  Electric  Co. 

Mr.  Marcel  Fraipont,  Director  General  of  the  Glass  Works  of  Val 
St-Lambert. 

Mr.  Jules  Lecocq,  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the  Central  Indus¬ 
trial  Committee  for  Belgium. 

III. — Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens,  Secretary  of  the  Trades  Union  Commission 
of  the  Belgian  Labor  Party  and  of  the  Independent  Trade  Unions. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Joseph  Baeck,  member  of  the  Executive  Council  of  the  Trades 
Union  Commission  of  the  Labor  Party  and  of  the  Independent 
Trades  Unions,  Provincial  Secretary  of  the  Metal  Workers  Union. 

Mr.  Adolphe  Dumont,  Federation  of  Liberal  Workers,  Antwerp. 

Mr.  Victor  Pary,  Secretary  of  the  General  Confederation  of  Evan¬ 
gelical  and  Free  Unions  of  Belgium. 

Mr.  John  Van  Dyck,  Treasurer  of  the  General  Confederation  of 
Evangelical  and  Free  Unions  of  Belguim. 

Mr.  Guillaume  Solau,  President  of  the  Trades  Union  Commission 
of  the  Labor  Party  and  of  the  Independent  Trade  Unions. 

Mr.  Evariste  Van  Quaquebeke,  General  Secretary  of  the  General 
Confederation  of  Evangelical  and  Free  Unions  of  Belgium. 

Miss  Helene  Burniaux,  Professor  of  St.  Gilles. 


Miss  Victoire  Cappe,  Vice  President  of  the  General  Confederation 
of  Evangelical  and  Free  Unions  of  Belgium. 

Bolivia. 

I. — Government  Delegate. 

Don  Ignacio  Calderon,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Bolivia  at  Washington. 

Brazil. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Dr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco,  M.  P.,  Professor  of  Law  Faculty 
Bello  Horisante. 

Dr.  Carlos  Caesar  de  Oliveira  Sanpaio,  Professor  of  Polytechnic 
School  and  of  the  Naval  Cullege,  Rio  Janeiro. 

III. — Workers’  Delegate. 

Dr.  Fausto  Ferraz,  Member  of  the  Federal  Congress  for  the  State 
of  Minas  Geraes. 

Canada. 

I.  — Government  Delegates  . 

The  Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson,  Senator  and  Minister  of  Labor 
of  Canada. 

The  Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell,  K.  C.,  M.  P.,  President  of  the 
Privy  Council  of  Canada,  and  Acting  Secretary  of  State  for  Ex¬ 
ternal  Affairs. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland,  Deputy  Minister  of  Labor  of  Canada. 

Mr.  Loring  C.  Christie,  Legal  Adviser  to  the  Department  of 
External  Affairs  of  Canada. 

Mr.  Daniel  A.  Cameron,  Member  of  the  Provincial  Legislature  of 
Nova  Scotia. 

The  Hon.  C.  W.  Robinson,  Member  without  portfolio  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Province  of  New  Brunswick. 

The  Hon.  W.L.  Mackenzie  King,  C.  M.  G.,  M.  P.,  former  Minister 
of  Labor  of  Canada. 

Mr.  Louis  Guyon,  Deputy  Minister  of  Labor  for  the  Province  of 
Quebec. 

Dr.  Walter  A.  Riddell,  Deputy  Minister  of  Labor  for  the  Province 
of  Ontario. 

The  Hon.  Thos.  H.  Johnson,  Attorney  General  for  the  Province 
of  Manitoba. 

Mr.  T.  M.  Molloy,  Secretary  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  for  the  Province 
of  Saskatchewan. 

The  Hon.  C.  R.  Mitchell,  Provincial  Treasurer  of  the  Province 
of  Alberta. 

Mr.  J.  D.  McNiven,  Deputy  Minister  of  Labor  for  the  Province  of 
British  Columbia. 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown,  Secretary  of  the  Reconstruction  Committee 
of  the  Government  of  Canada. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons,  President  British  American  Oil  Company, 
Limited. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Walsh,  General  Manager,  Canadian  Manufacturers’  Asso¬ 
ciation. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Stirrett,  General  Secretary,  Canadian  Manufacturers’ 
Association. 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson,  Ottawa  Representative,  Canadian 
Manufacturers’  Association. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Hugo,  Canadian  Manufacturers’  Association. 

Mr.  J.  G.  Merrick,  Secretary  Canadian  Employers’  Association. 


6 


LIST  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS 


III.- — Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper,  Secretary  Treasurer,  Trades  and  Labor  Congress 
of  Canada,  and  President,  Ottawa  Typographical  Union. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Tom  Moore,  President,  Trades  and  Labor  Congress  of  Canada. 
Mr.  Arthur  Martel,  Vice  President,  Trades  and  Labor  Congress 
of  Canada. 

Mr.  "Robert  Baxter,  Vice  President,  Trades  and  Labor  Congress 
of  Canada. 

Mr.  David  Rees,  Vice  President,  Trades  and  Labor  Congress  of 
Canada. 

Mrs.  Kathleen  Derry,  member,  Boot  and  Shoe  Workers’  Union. 

Chili. 

Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China. 

Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang,  Second  Secretary  of  Legation  at  Washington. 
Mr.  Yung  Kwai,  Counselor  of  Legation  and  Charg6  d’Affaires  ad 
interim. 

Advisers, 

Mr.  Wu  Chang,  Third  Secretary  of  Legation  at  Washington. 

Mr.  Tsu-Li  Sun,  Attach^. 

Mr.  Pan  Francis  Shah,  Attach6. 

Mr.  Yung-Ching  Yang,  Chancellor  of  Legation. 

Mr.  Hsiao  Wei  Min,  Chancellor  of  Legation. 

Mr.  Kenyon  Vanlee  Dzung,  Chancellor  of  Legation. 

Columbia. 

Government  Delegate. 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  at  Washington. 

Cuba. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Sr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas,  Ex-Envoy  Extraordinary,  Ex- 
Minister  to  Venezuela,  Assistant  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  Com¬ 
merce,  and  Labor. 

Sr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz,  Ex-Minister  to  the  United  States, 
Spain,  and  Mexico,  and  Professor  of  the  University  of  Havana. 

Advisers. 

Senora  Laura  G.  de  Zayas  Bazan,  Professor  in  the  Normal  School 
of  Havana. 

Sr.  Luis  Marina  Perez,  Librarian  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Sr.  Carlos  Loveira  y  Chirino,  Ex-Delegate  of  the  American  Fed¬ 
eration  of  Labor  to  South  America. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Sr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  De  Los  Reyes,  Ex-Magistrate. 

Czecho-Slovakia. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek,  head  of  Department  in  Ministry  of  Social  Welfare. 
Mr.  Charles  Spinka,  Inspector  of  Labor. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz,  Secretary  General  of  Federation  of  Czecho-Slovak 
Manufacturers,  Prague. 


Advisers. 

Mr.  H.  Waldes,  Manufacturer,  Prague. 

Mr.  A.  Kriz,  Tailor,  Prague. 

III. — Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle,  M.  P.,  Secretary  Czecho-Slovakian  Federation  of 
Labor,  Prague. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  F.  Stastny,  Secretary  Federation  Metal  Workers. 

Mr.  V.  Dundr,  Secretary  Czecho-Slovakian  Federation  of  Labor. 

Mrs.  M.  Stivinova  Majerova,  Municipal  Counsellor  of  Prague. 

Mrs.  Louisa  Landova  Stychova,  Member  of  Parliament. 

Denmark. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  S.  Neumann,  President  of  the  Labor  Council,  Chief  of  Bureau  of 
the  Department  of  Labor  and  Social  Insurance,  Ministry  of  Inte¬ 
rior. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes,  Member  of  Parliament,  Secretary  in  the  Sta¬ 
tistical  Department. 

Advisers. 

Mrs.  Marie  Hjelmer,  Member  of  Parliament. 

Mr.  Berthel  Dahlgaard,  Deputy  Chief  of  the  Statistical  Bureau 
of  Copenhagen. 

Mr.  Svend  Trier,  Deputy  Chief  Inspector  of  Factories  and  Work¬ 
shops. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen,  Representative  of  the  Central  Federation  of  Labor 
Employers. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Oersted,  Chief  of  Bureau  of  said  Federation. 

III. — Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen,  President  of  Amalgamated  Federation  of  Labor 
Unions. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  P.  Hedebol,  Member  of  Parliament,  Member  of  the  Copenhagen 
Town  Council. 

Ecuador. 

Government  Delegates 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

Finland. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni¬ 
potentiary  at  Washington. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio,  Secretary  General,  Department  of  Labor. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius,  Mechanical  Engineer,  President  Metal  Em. 
ployers’  Federation. 

III.  — Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori,  President  Trade  Union  Organization  of  Fin¬ 
land,  Member  of  Parliament,  formerly  Social  Minister. 

France. 

I.  Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine,  Director  of  the  Labor  Department,  Ministry 
of  Labor,  Chairman  of  Executive  Committee  of  the  French  State 
Railways. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard,  Secretary  General  of  the  French  Association  on 
U  nemploy  ment. 


LIST  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS 


7 


Advisers. 

Mr.  Pierre  Boulin,  Divisional  Labor  Inspector. 

Mrs.  Letellier,  Labor  Inspector. 

Mr.  Tony  Reymond,  Assistant  Director,  Ministry  of  Public  Works, 
General  Secretary  of  the  French  State  Railways. 

II. — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin,  Director  of  the  Division  of  Linen  Industry  of 
France,  Member  of  the  Supreme  Labor  Council. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Paul  Collinet,  Professor  in  the  Law  Faculty  of  Paris. 

Mr.  Goineau,  Head  of  the  Personnel  Department  of  the  Schneider 
&  Co.  Establishments. 

Mr.  Henri,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Department  of  Rolling  Stock  and 
Traction  of  the  P.  L.  M.  Railway. 

III. —  Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Leon  Jouhaux,  Secretary  General  of  the  General  Confederation 
of  Labor. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Bidegarray,  Secretary  of  the  Federation  of  Railway  Workmen. 

Miss  Jeanne  Bouvier,  Member  of  the  Federation  of  Clothing 
Workers. 

Mr.  Dumoulin,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  General  Confederation  of 
Labor. 

Mr.  Lenoir,  Secretary  of  the  Federation  of  Metal  Workers. 


Great  Britain. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  M.  P.,  Member  of  the  War  Cabinet. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  K.  C.  B.,  Assistant  Under  Secretary  of 
State — Home  Office. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  G.  Bellhouse,  Deputy  Chief  Inspector  of  Factories. 

Dr.  T.  M.  Legge,  Senior  Medical  Inspector  of  Factories. 

Miss  Constance  Smith,  Senior  Lady  Inspector  of  Factories. 

Mr.  I.  H.  Mitchell,  Industrial  Commissioner,  Ministry  of  Labor. 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price,  Assistant  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Labor. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks,  Managing  Director,  Sir  W.  G.  Armstrong, 
Whitworth  <fc  Co.,  Ltd. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  G.  S.  Maginness,  Assistant  General  Manager,  Kynoch,  Ltd. 

Dr.  S.  Miall,  Director  of  the  Brimsdown  Lead  Co. 

Mr.  A.  J.  C.  Ross,  Managing  Director  of  Hawthorne,  Leslie  &  Co., 
Ltd. 

Mr.  Howard  Williams,  Assistant  General  Manager  of  the  London 
&  North  Western  Railway. 

Mrs.  B.  Majoribanks,  Late  Chief  of  the  Employment  Bureau  for 
Women  at  Sir  W.  G.  Armstrong,  Whitworth  &  Co.,  Ltd. 

III.  —  Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning,  Ex-Chairman  of  the  Parliamentary 
Committee,  Trades  Union  Congress. 

Advisers. 

Right  Hon.  C.  W.  Bowerman,  M.  P.,  Secretary  Parliamentary 
Committee,  Trades  Union  Congress. 

Mr.  J.  Sexton,  M.  P.,  Transport  Workers’  Federation. 

Mr.  T.  Shaw,  M.  P.,  Weavers’  Association. 

Mr.  A.  Onions,  M.  P.,  Miners’  Federation. 

Miss  Margaret  Bondfield,  Member  of  the  Parliamentary  Commit¬ 
tee,  Trades  Union  Congress. 

Miss  Mary  MacArthur,  National  Federation  of  Women  Workers. 


Greece. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Ministry  of 
National  Economy,  First  Delegate. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos,  Inspector  of  Industry  of  the  Ministry 
of  National  Economy,  Second  Delegate. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene,  Vice  President  of  the  Greek  Manufac¬ 
turers’  Association. 

III.  —  Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos,  Secretary  Workers’  Federation, 
Pyraeus. 

Guatemala. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour,  First  Secretary  of  the  Legation 
of  Guatemala  at  Washington. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea,  Consul  General  at  New  York. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez,  Member  of  Parliament. 

III. —  Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Haiti. 

I.  — Government  Delegate. 

Mr.  Charles  Moravia,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni¬ 
potentiary  at  Washington. 

India. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw,  C.  S.  I.,  C.  I.  E.,  Secretary,  Revenue 
and  Statistics  Department,  India  Office,  London. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee,  C.  I.  E.,  I.  C.  S.,  Acting  Chief 
Secretary,  United  Provinces  Government. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  John  David  Frederick  Engel,  Chief  Inspector  of  Factories, 
Bombay  Presidency. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray,  C  B.  E.,  Chairman  ot  the 
Indian  Jute  Mills  Association. 

III.  —  Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi,  Secretary,  Social  Service  League, 
Bombay. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  Bahman  Pestonji  Waddia,  President,  Madras  Labor  Union. 

Italy. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches,  Senator  and  Ambassador. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione,  Royal  Inspector  of  Emigration, 
replacing  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini,  Member  of  the  Chamber  of  Depu¬ 
ties  and  Vice  President  of  the  Supreme  Committee  on  Labor. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Bernardi,  Chief  Inspector  of  Industry  and  Labor. 

Mr.  G.  Fasolato,  Inspector  of  Industry  and  Labor. 

Mrs.  Casartelli  Cabrini,  General  Secretary  of  Women’s  National 
Association,  Member  of  Central  Committee  of  the  Employment 
Bureau. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Comm.  E.  Baroni,  President  of  Italian  Association  of  Explosives 
Manufacturers,  replacing  Mr.  F.  Quartieri,  President  of  the 
Italian  Chemical  Industry  Corporation. 


8 


LIST  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS 


Adviser. 

G.  Mylius,  President  of  the  Italian  Cotton  Association. 

III. — Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi,  Assistant  Secretary  General  of  the  Italian  Gen¬ 
eral  Confederation  of  Labor. 

Advisers. 

Dr.  Mario  Sacco,  Counselor  to  the  Italian  Confederation  of  Workers. 

Mr.  Guido  di  Dio,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Federation  of  Metal 
Workers. 

Japan. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada,  President  of  Keio  University,  Member  of  the 
House  of  Peers. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka,  Ex-Director  of  the  Bureau  of  Commerce  and 
Industry  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  and  Commerce. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Shoji  Konishi,  Expert  Engineer  of  the  Department  of  Com¬ 
merce  and  Agriculture. 

Mr.  Takenori  Kikuchi. 

Dr.  Yeigoro  Kanasugi,  Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Dr.  Kanji  Riga,  Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Dr.  Teijiro  Uyeda,  Professor  of  the  Tokyo  Commercial  College. 

Mr.  Bunjo  Kubota. 

Mr.  Kyo  Kumasaki,  Consul  General  at  New  York. 

Dr.  Yamato  Ichihashi,  Professor  of  Leland  Stanford  Junior  Uni¬ 
versity,  Calif. 

Mrs.  Taka  Tanaka. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto,  Managing  Director  of  the  Kanegafuchi  Spinning 
Co.  (Ltd.). 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Zensuke  Kudo,  Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Mr.  Shinkichi  Tamura,  President  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
Kobe. 

Dr.  Ryusaku  Godai,  Vice  President  of  the  Mining  Institute  of 
Civil  Engineers. 

Dr.  Shogo  Hasegawa,  Managing  Director  of  the  Osaka  Wagon 
Manufacturing  Co.  (Ltd.).  • 

Dr.  Iwasaburo  Nakahara,  President  of  the  Japan  Electric 
Association. 

III.  —  Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Shichiro  Muto, 

Mr.  Yeiji  Ogasawara, 

Mr.  Kohei  Sato, 

Mr.  Yoshinari  Kido, 

Mr.  Magosaburo  Domae. 

Netherlands. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  Member  of  the  Second  Chamber  of  the 
Netherlands  Parliament;  Professor  of  Labor  Legislation  at  Am¬ 
sterdam  University. 

Mr.  G.  J.  Van  Thienen,  Chief  Inspector  of  Labor. 

Advisers. 

Mrs.  Suze  Groeneweg,  Member  of  the  Second  Chamber  of  the 
Netherlands  Parliament. 

Miss  Henriette  Kuyper. 

II. — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade,  Vice  President  of  the  Dutch  Manufacturers’ 
Association;  Member  of  the  Industrial  Council. 


Advisers. 

Mr.  S.  Ten  Bokkel  Huinink,  Contractor  for  Harbor  Works,  Member 
of  the  Town  Council  and  Alderman  of  Ubbergen. 

Mr.  J.  Ter  Haar,  Jr.,  Member  of  the  Town  Council  of  Amsterdam. 

Mr.  H.  Blomjous,  Manufacturer  in  Silburg,  Member  of  the  Indus¬ 
trial  Council. 

Ill . —  Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Jan  Oudegeest,  Member  of  the  Second  Chamber  of  the  Neth¬ 
erlands  Parliament;  President  of  the  National  Federation  of 
Trade  Unions. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  P.  Serrarens,  Member  of  the  Executive  Council  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Confederation  of  Catholic  Trade  Unions. 

Mr.  G.  Baas,  Vice  Secretary  of  the  General  Confederation  of  Evan¬ 
gelical  Trade  Unions. 

Mr.  B.  Holtrop,  President  of  the  Netherlands  Federation  of  Trade 
Unions. 

Nicaragua. 

Government  Delegate. 

Don  Ramon  Enriquez,  Consul  General  at  New  Orleans,  formerly 
Chargd  de  Affaires  at  Washington,  ex-Congressman. 

Norway. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Judge  Johan  Castberg,  Ex-Minister  of  Labor,  President  of  the 
Legislative  Chamber  of  the  Storting. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund,  Barrister  at  the  Supreme  Court,  Commissioner  of 
Mediation. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Th.  G.  Thorsen,  Secretary  General  of  the  Ministry  of  Labor. 

Mrs.  Betzy  Kjelsberg,  State  Inspector  of  Factories. 

II.  — Employers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  G.  Pa  us,  Assistant  Director  of  the  Association  of  Norwegian 
Employers. 

III. —  Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen,  Secretary  General  of  the  National  Federation  of 
Trade  Unions. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  J.  Vidnes,  Member  of  Municipal  Council  of  Christiania,  Director 
of  Publicity  Bureau  in  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Panama. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Josri  A.  Zubieta. 

III. —  Workers’  Delegate. 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  Jose  E.  Lef^vre. 

Paraguay. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni¬ 
potentiary  at  Washington, 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos,  Director  of  Paraguayan  Office  of  Money 
Exchange. 

Persia. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan,  Sadigh-es-Saltaneh,  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  at  Washington. 

Mirza  An  Asghar  Khan,  Secretary  of  Legation  at  Washington. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Henry  C.  Finkel. 

Mr.  Louis  Addison  Dent. 


LIST  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS 


9 


Peru. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost,  Formerly  Financial  Agent  for  United  States. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson,  Consul  General  of  Peru  to  the  United 
States. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales,  National  Society  of  Industries,  Publisher, 
Journalist,  and  Banker. 

III. — Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon,  Central  International  Union  of  Laborers. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  Alvarez  de  Buenavista. 

Poland. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal,  Director  of  Labor  Department,  Ministry  of 
Labor  and  Social  Welfare,  President  of  the  Polish  Delegation  to 
the  International  Labor  Conference. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer,  Member  of  Parliament,  President  of  the  Polish 
Workers’  Union  of  Upper  Silesia. 

Advisers. 

Mrs.  Zofja  Praussowa,  Labor  Inspector. 

Mr.  Jan  Rogowicz. 

Dr.  Wladyslaw  Sokolowski,  immigration  Attach^  to  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  Mieczyslaw  Jastrzebowski,  Chief,  Division  of  Labor,  Em¬ 
ployers’  Association. 

Mr.  Maciej  Laszczynski,  Editor  of  “Labor’s  Voice.” 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny,  Formerly  Minister  of  Trade  and  Commerce, 
President  of  the  Labor  Committee,  Employers’  Association. 

III.  —  Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz,  President  of  the  Polish  Workers’ 
Union. 

Portugal. 

I.  — Government  Delegate. 

Mr.  Jos£  Barbosa,  Ex-Member  of  Parliament,  President  of  the 
Court  of  Accounts. 

•  Advisers. 

Dr.  J.  Camoesas,  Member  of  Parliament. 

Maj.  Thomas  Fernandes. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda,  Acting  President  of  the  Commercial  Asso¬ 
ciation,  Lisbon. 

III.  — Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco,  President  of  the  Committee  for  the  Preven¬ 
tion  of  Unemployment. 

Roumania. 

Government  Delegates. 

Mr.  Constantin  Orghidan,  Chief  Engineer,  Chief  Inspector  of 
Roumanian  Railway  Shops. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco,  Commercial  Attach^,  Legation  of  Rou¬ 
mania  at  Washington. 

Salvador. 

Government  Delegate. 

Don  Salvador  Sol,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipoten¬ 
tiary  at  Washington. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plen¬ 
ipotentiary. 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 


Advisers. 

Mrs.  Mabel  Grouitch. 

Mr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch,  Inspector  of  Department  of  Commerce 
and  Agriculture. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer,  Secretary  of  the  Employers’  Association,  Za¬ 
greb. 

III.  —  Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz,  Secretary  of  the  Labor  Union  of  Ljubljana. 

Siam. 

Government  Delegates. 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi,  Secretary  of  the  Legation  of  Siam  at 
Washington. 

South  Africa. 

I. ' — Government  Delegate. 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth,  C.  M.  G.,  Secretary  for  Mines  and  In¬ 
dustries  and  Acting  Chief  Inspector  of  Factories. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill,  F.  I.  A.,  Labor  Adviser  and  Actuary  of  the 
Transvaal  Chamber  of  Mines. 

III. — Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford,  Secretary  of  the  South  Africa  Indus¬ 
trial  Federation  and  of  the  South  African  Trade  Union  Congress. 

'  Spain. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Viscount  De  Eza,  M.  P.,  President  of  the  National  Institute  for 
Social  Reforms;  Ex-Minister  of  Industry,  Commerce,  Agriculture, 
and  Public  Works;  President  of  the  Spanish  Delegation  to  the 
Conference. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada,  Director  in  the  National  Institute 
for  Social  Reforms;  Professor  of  the  Central  University  of  Madrid; 
Member  of  the  Academy  of  Moral  and  Political  Sciences;  Repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  Spanish  Government  to  the  Conference. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Jose  Gascon  Marin,  M.  P.,  Professor  of  the  Central  Univer¬ 
sity  of  Madrid. 

Marquesa  De  Casa  Cortes. 

Mrs.  Teresa  Escoriaza,  Teacher. 

Mr.  Pedro  Sangro,  Assistant  of  the  National  Institute  for  Social 
Reforms;  Secretary  of  the  Spanish  Section  of  the  International 
Association  for  the  Protection  of  Laborers. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala,  M.  P.,  Honorary  President  of  the  Industrial  In¬ 
stitute  of  Tarra-sa;  Ex-Director  General  of  Commerce. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Ramoneda,  Employers’  Mechanical  and  Chemical 
Engineer,  President  of  the  Association  of  Mechanical  and  Chem¬ 
ical  Engineers  of  Barcelona. 

Mr.  Miguel  Sastre,  Publicist. 

III.  — Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero,  Member  of  the  Board  of  National 
Institute  for  Social  Reforms;  Secretary  of  the  General  Working¬ 
men’s  Union  of  Spain. 

Advisers. 

Mr.  Fernando  de  los  Rios,  M.  P.,  Professor  of  the  University  of 
Granada. 

Mr.  Luis  Araquistain,  Publicist. 

Mr.  Emilio  Jimeno,  Professor  of  the  University  of  Oviedo. 

Mr.  Cruz  Gallastegui,  Agricultural  Engineer. 

Mr.  Perez  de  Ayala,  Publicist. 


10 


LIST  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS 


Sweden. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg,  Minister  Resident,  Counselor  of  the 
Legation  of  Sweden  at  Washington. 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch,  Chief  Government  Inspector 
of  Charities  and  Corrections. 


Advisers. 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Hues,  Bureau  Chief  and  Acting  President  of  Gov¬ 
ernment  Industrial  Commission. 

Miss  Kerstin  Hesselgren,  Government  Inspector  of  Factories. 


II .—Employers’  Delegate. 


Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow,  President  of  the  Swedish  Employ¬ 
ers’  Association. 


Adviser. 


Switzerland. 

I.  — Government  Delegates. 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer,  Swiss  Minister  at  Washington. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht,  Director  Federal  Office  of  Social 
Insurance  at  Bern. 

Adviser. 

Dr.  Henry  Wegmann,  Federal  Inspector  of  Factories  of  the  Third 
District  at  Zurich. 

II.  — Employers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler,  Director  General  of  the  Oerlikon  Machine 
Factory. 

III.  — Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg,  National  Counsellor,  Secretary  of  the  Swiss 
Federation  of  Metal  and  Clock  Workers. 

Uruguay. 


Mr.  J.  Sigfrid  Edstrom,  President  of  the  Federation  of  Machine 
Industries  of  Sweden. 

III. — Workers'  Delegate. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist,  Speaker,  the  Second  Chamber  of  the 
Riksdag,  President  of  the  National  Federation  of  Trade  Unions. 

Adviser. 

Mr.  Otio  Johansson,  Editor. 


Government  Delegates. 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipo¬ 
tentiary  at  Washington. 

Mr.  Hugo  V.  de  Pena. 

Venezuela. 

I. — Government  Delegates. 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  at  Washington. 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz,  Consul  General  at  New  Orleans. 


v 


International  Labor  Conference. 


FIRST  SESSION— WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER  29,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  11.30  a.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson,  Sec¬ 
retary  of  Labor  of  the  United  States,  presiding. 

Secretary  of  Labor  WILSON.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  members  of 
the  International  Labor  Conference,  on  behalf  of  the  Government, 
that  is  to  say,  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  in  the 
name  of  the  President,  I  bid  you  welcome  to  our  country  and  to  this 
great  conference.  Our  latehstrings  are  out,  our  homes  are  your 
homes,  our  hearthstones  are  your  hearthstones;  we  want  you  to  feel 
that  you  are  not  strangers  at  the  gate,  but  part  of  us. 

The  questions  with  which  this  organization  as  a  continuing  body 
will  have  to  deal  constitute  the  great  unsolved,  but  not  unsolvable, 
problem  of  spiritual  and  material  development.  From  the  days 
when  Moses,  as  the  spokesman,  the  angel,  the  walking  delegate  of 
the  brickmakers  of  Israel,  until  the  present  time,  the  relationship  that 
should  exist  between  employers  and  employees,  the  best  means  of 
securing  the  acme  of  production  while  safeguarding  those  who  toil, 
and  the  equitable  distribution  of  that  which  has  been  produced,  have 
been  ever  present  questions.  Upon  the  proper  solution  of  these 
questions  depends  the  future  progress  of  the  world. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  expected  that  they  can  be  solved  by  the  struggles 
and  clash  of  contending  interests,  though  these  may  help  bring  into 
the  light  the  different  factors  that  have  to  be  taken  into  consideration. 
No  one  can  expect  that  we  can  build  overnight  the  machinery  that 
will  move  us  from  the  chaos  of  to-day  to  the  universal  justice,  har¬ 
mony,  and  happiness  contained  in  our  ideals. 

We  must  proceed  by  the  slow  process  of  experiment,  of  building  one 
block  upon  another,  of  discarding  that  which  is  found  to  be  bad  and 
retaining  that  which  is  good,  and  our  experiments  should  be  so 
adapted  that  no  explosions  will  take  place  which  will  destroy  the 
basis  of  the  structure  of  modem  civilization,  the  democratic  institu¬ 
tions  that  exist  in  numerous  nations  of  the  world;  for,  after  all,  of 
what  avail  the  plough  and  sail,  or  land,  or  light,  or  life,  if  freedom 
fail?  [Applause.] 

To  you  is  intrusted  the  scientific  analysis  of  the  labor  question. 
On  the  accuracy  with  which  you  consider  all  the  elements  will 
depend  the  value  of  the  result.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  consider  only 
material  things.  The  great  human  struggle  of  the  race  has  achieved 
a  condition  of  society  where  the  individual  can  find  the  fullest 
measure  of  the  expression  of  his  spiritual  nature  and  the  highest 
standard  of  material  comfort  that  his  energy  and  intelligence  can 
produce,  commensurate  with  the  well-being  of  the  man.  And  in  all 
of  this,  the  prime  factor  is  the  man  himself.  Any  conclusion  that 
this  conference  may  arrive  atvwhich  does  not  give  full  consideration  to 
the  fact  that  the  workers  of  the  world  are  living,  moving,  sentient 
human  beings,  with  all  the  hopes  and  aspirations  that  God  has  im¬ 
planted  in  the  human  breast,  will  fail  of  the  purpose  for  which  this 
body  has  been  created. 

This  institution  represents  the  first  concerted  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  nations  of  the  earth  to  deal  with  the  problems  of  labor  in  a  com¬ 
prehensive  manner.  We  are  all  glad  that  the  hostilities  of  the  world 
conflict  have  ceased.  We  are  glad  that  the  treaty  of  peace  has  been 
signed  and  is  about  to  be  ratified.  We  are  endeavoring  to  find 
means  by  which  future  wars  may  be  eliminated  or  reduced  to  a 
minimum.  WTar  is  waste.  As  Sherman  said,  “War  is  hell.”  If  it 
is  worth  while  to  put  forth  our  greatest  efforts  to  promote  peace 
amongst  the  nations  of  the  earth,  it  is  well  worth  while  also  to  pro¬ 
mote  industrial  peace — to  work  out  our  problems  by  the  process  of 


reasoning  rather  than  by  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword.  To  the 
accomplishment  of  that  great  task  you  have  been  called. 

In  the  treaty  of  peace  two  distinct  functions  have  been  intrusted 
to  the  United  States:  First,  that  of  convening  this  conference,  and, 
second,  that  of  organizing  it.  The  treaty  specified  that  it  must  be 
convened  in  October,  and  the  first  function  intrusted  to  us  is  an 
accomplished  fact. 

The  second  function,  that  of  organizing  the  conference  is  a  con¬ 
tinuing  process  until  the  organization  has  been  completed.  The 
completion  of  the  organization  can  not  take  place  until  the  League 
of  Nations  has  been  created.  While  the  final  technical  steps  have 
not  been  taken,  the  creation  of  the  League  of  Nations  is  now  an 
assured  fact.  We  can,  therefore,  go  on  with  the  definite  assurance 
that  it  will  be  ultimately  completed,  and  I  take  the  liberty  of  suggest¬ 
ing  that  this  conference  proceed  during  the  process  of  organization 
to  the  consideration  of  the  questions  it  has  before  it.  [Applause.] 

I  now  have  the  great  pleasure  of  presenting  to  you  the  Director 
General  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  Mr.  John  Barrett,  who  on 
behalf  of  that  great  international  organization  will  bid  you  wel¬ 
come. 

Mr.  JOHN  BARRETT.  Mr.  Chairman,  officers,  members,  and 
guests  of  the  International  Labor  Conference,  it  is  a  great  honor  and 
pleasure,  as  well  as  a  delightful  duty  to  extend  to  you,  in  my  capacity 
as  executive  officer  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  and  hence  as  the 
official  host,  so  to  speak,  of  this  house,  a  sincere  welcome  to  its  use 
for  your  session.  May  I  correct  the  interpreter  and  s£ty  that  I  have 
not  the  honor  of  being  president  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  for  if 
there  were  a  president,  he  is  ex  officio  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States.  I  am  simply  executive  officer  and  director  general. 
That  you  may  appreciate  the  significance  of  this  environment, 
permit  me  to  state  that  you  are  assembled  in  a  unique  structure,  an 
international  building  in  every  respect,  the  only  one  in  the  wide 
world  belonging  to  a  large  group  of  nations,  and  also  the  permanent 
home  of  a  great  and  successful  league  of  nations  which  has  been  in 
practical  existence  for  nearly  30  years,  and  during  that  period  has 
known  no  serious  armed  conflict  between  any  two  or  more  of  its 
constituent  members. 

The  Pan  American  Union,  defined  in  a  sentence,  is  the  official 
international  organization  of  the  21  independent  American  Republics 
devoted  to  the  development  of  friendship  and  intercourse,  commerce 
and  trade,  good  will  and  peace  among  them  all,  controlled  by  a 
governing  board,  or  supreme  council  composed  of  the  diplomatic 
representatives  in  Washington  of  the  20  Latin  American  Govern¬ 
ments  and  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States;  maintained 
by  their  joint  contributions  of  quotas  based  on  their  population, 
and  conducting  a  vast  work  of  spreading  helpful  information  and 
beneficient  knowledge  throughout  the  world  relating  to  every  Ameri¬ 
can  country  by  the  aid  of  a  staff  of  experts  in  international  affairs, 
statistical  and  educational  sections,  a  comprehensive  library,  reading 
room,  collection  of  maps  and  charts:  numerous  publications,  reports, 
and  other  informative  data,  all  of  which  you  are  respectfully  invited 
to  enjoy  or  to  inspect  or  study. 

This  noble  edifice  was  erected  through  the  munificence  of  the  late 
Andrew  Carnegie  and  the  contributions  of  all  the  American  Repub¬ 
lics,  and  dedicated  forever  to  the  cause  of  Pan  American  peace  and 
progress.  In  this  Hall  of  the  Americas  you  will  note  that  the 
dominating  suggestion  is  found  in  the  word  “Pax”  high  up  in  the 

11 


12 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


four  corners.  In  yonder  council  chamber  meets  every  month  the 
governing  board  of  the  supreme  council  of  the  Pan  American  Union — 
around  the  same  table  sit,  elbow  to  elbow,  the  plenipotentiaries  of 
21  nations  and  200,000,000  people  bent  upon  preserving  the  peace 
and  prosperity  of  the  new  world  and  aiding  thereby  in  preserving 
the  peace  and  prosperity  of  all  the  world.  May  the  tradition,  the 
record,  and  the  achievements  of  such  an  organization,  the  combina¬ 
tion  of  the  beautiful  and  the  practical  in  this  building,  and  the  en¬ 
vironment  which  it  suggests  of  peace  and  progress,  be  an  inspiration 
and  help  to  you  in  working  out  the  intricate  problems  that  are  before 
you.  The  building  is  yours.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  of  the  Italian  delegation 
is  recognized. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  Gentlemen.  I  address 
you  as  the  representative  of  a  country  at  once  among  the 
oldest  and  among  the  youngest  of  nations;  and  also  as  one  of  the 
oldest  members  of  this  assembly.  And,  in  behalf  of  all  of  you,  I 
wish  to  thank  the  American  Government  for  being  the  first  to  extend 
hospitality  to  the  Labor  Conference,  and  for  bringing  us  together  in 
this  beautiful  capital,  the  name  of  which  recalls  one  of  the  greatest 
men  of  whom  the  history  of  humanity  can  boast. 

A  shadow,  however,  dims  our  pleasure  in  the  reception  given  us; 
we  all  regret,  from  the  bottom  of  our  hearts,  the  temporary  illness  of 
the  Chief  Executive  of  the  United  States  and  we  earnestly  hope  for 
the  speedy  recovery  of  one  who  is  so  dear  to  his  country  and  to 
humanity.  [Applause.] 

I  also  wish  to  thank  the  British  Government  in  your  name,  for 
accepting  and  carrying  to  a  successful  issue  in  the  space  of  a  few 
months  the  difficult  task  of  organizing  the  conference  which  was  to 
issemble  at  Washington. 

We  owe  it  to  these  two  countries  that  we  are  now  able  to  meet  here 
today  with  a  clearly  defined  program  before  us,  and  ready  to  take 
up  aft^r  methodical  preparation  our  great  and  noble  task.  I  speak 
advisedly  in  saying,  a  great  and  noble  task.  All  who  take  part  in 
these  discussions  surely  realize  their  importance.  Outside  of  these 
walls  the  world  will  appreciate  the  object  of  our  efforts,  which  is 
the  securing  of  social  peace. 


It  is  the  first  time  in  history  that  delegates  of  the  working  class,  of 
the  employing  class,  and  of  the  Governments  have  been  brought 
together,  truly  representing  the  nations  in  their  entirety.  We  meet 
with  feelings  of  sincere  good  faith  to  work  together  toward  a  common 
end  which  may  be  summed  up  as  follows:  To  assure  to  the  workers 
that  minimum  of  material  well-being  indispensable  to  progressive 
development,  and  to  secure  continuity  of  production  to  the  benefit 
of  all. 

We  regret  to  note  the  absence,  for  reasons  which  we  are  not  called 
upon  to  comment  on,  of  the  delegates  of  American  employers  and 
workmen.  I  think  that  I  am  expressing  the  sentiments  of  all  those 
present  in  proposing  that  a  special  invitation  be  sent  to  their  dele¬ 
gates,  already  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  Mr.  Wilson,  so 
that  they  may  take  part  in  our  task. 

With  these  explanations,  I  offer  the  first  motion,  which  reads  as  fol¬ 
lows: 

I.  The  delegates  of  the  Governments,  the  employers  and  the  workers,  now  assem¬ 
bled  at  Washington,  desire  to  express  at  the  beginning  of  their  labors  their  most 
sincere  thanks  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  having  undertaken  to  con¬ 
vene  this  conference,  and  to  convey  their  most  fervent  wishes  for  the  speedy  restora¬ 
tion  to  health  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  second  motion  is  this: 

The  second  motion  is  this: 

II.  The  delegates  of  the  Governments,  the  employers  and  the  workers  here  assem¬ 
bled  request  the  organizing  committee  to  invite  the  organizations  of  workers  and 
employers  of  the  United  States,  already  named  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  Mr.  Wilson, 
to  send  their  delegates  to  this  conference. 

[The  president  of  the  conference,  Secretary  Wilson,  put  the  two 
proposals  to  the  members  of  the  conference,  whereupon  they  were 
unanimously  adopted.  (Applause.)] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  next  matter  for  consideration  by  the 
conference  is  a  report  by  Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine,  chairman  of  the  or¬ 
ganizing  committee,  and  I  suggest  that  as  that  report  is  likely  to  be 
of  some  length,  we  recess  until  3  o’clock  and  reconvene  at  that  time 
to  proceed  with  hearing  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee.  If 
there  is  no  objection,  we  will  recess  until  3  o’clock.  I  hear  none, 
and  we  recess. 

[Recess  until  3  o’clock.] 


SECOND  SESSION— WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER  29,  1919. 


The  conference  opened  at  3  o’clock,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson,  Secretary 
of  Labor,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Your  secretary  has  a  communication  which 
will  be  read. 

The  Clerk  of  the  Conference.  This  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  Be  rues’ 
secretary,  addressed  to  the  president: 

I  am  desired  by  Mr.  Barnes  to  inform  you  that  owing  to  illness  he  is  unable  to  at¬ 
tend  the  opening  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  to-day,  and  he  accordingly 
desires  to  appoint  a  substitute.  Mr.  J.  F.  Price,  adviser  to  the  British  Government 
delegation,  will  be  prepared  to  act  in  this  capacity. 

Mr.  Barnes  wishes  me  to  add  that  he  deeply  regrets  his  inability  to  be  present  at 
the  opening  of  the  conference,  which,  however,  he  expects  to  be  able  to  attend  in  a 
day  or  two. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  sure  that  I  express  the  sentiment  of  the 
entire  conference  when  I  regret  that  Mr.  Barnes  is  ill  and  can  not 
be  with  us,  and  hope  for  his  speedy  and  complete  recovery.  If  there 
is  no  objection,  his  request  in  reference  to  a  substitute  will  be  com¬ 
plied  with.  The  minister  from  the  Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  GROUITCn  (Serbs  Croats  and  Slovenes).  Mr.  Chairman, 
ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  wish  to  submit  a  resolution.  We  have  this 
morning  expressed  our  thanks  to  the  United  States  Government  and 
to  the  British  Government  for  the  part  which  they  have  taken  in  the 
organization  of  this  conference.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have 
another  duty  to  perform,  and  I  think  we  ought  to  perform  it  at  once. 


We  are  here  as  the  guests  of  the  Pan  American  Union.  We  are  in  the 
building  belonging  to  the  Pan  American  Union  and  we  ha-  •  heard 
the  address  of  the  director  general,  Mr.  John  Barrett,  this  morning, 
who  has  explained  its  purpose  to  us.  Many  of  us  knew  it  already. 
As  I  said,  I  think  it  our  duty  to  express  our  thanks  to  the  director 
general,  Mr.  Barrett,  and  through  him  to  the  Pan  American  Union 
for  the  hospitality  which  they  have  extended  to  us. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  from  the  Swedish  Gov¬ 
ernment  is  recognized. 

Judge  SJOBORG  (Sweden).  I  desire  to  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  resolution.  The  ques¬ 
tion  is  now  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  as  presented. 

[Upon  being  put  to  a  vote  the  resolution  was  unanimously 
adopted]. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Fontaine,  on  behalf  of  the  organizing 
committee,  is  recognized.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France),  president  of  the  organizing  committee, 
reads  report: 

Repoet  of  the  President  of  the  Organizing  Committee. 

On  April  11, 1919,  the  Peace  Conference  approved,  with  some  changes,  the  standing 
orders  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  (general  annual  conference,  permanent 
office,  governing  body),  prepared  by  its  commission  on  international  labor  legisla¬ 
tion.  It  also  approved  the  provisions  concerning  a  first  meeting  at  Washington  in 
October,  1919,  of  the  International  Labor  Conference,  and  these  provisions  con¬ 
tained  the  agenda  for  this  meeting.  You  all  have  in  your  hands  the  statutes  of  our 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


13 


International  Labor  Organization.  The  agenda  for  the  Washington  conference  is 
as  follows: 

1.  Application  of  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week. 

2.  Question  of  preventing  or  providing  against  unemployment. 

3.  Women’s  employment  (a)  before  or  after  childbirth  (including  the  question  of 
maternity  benefit);  (6)  during  the  night;  (c)  in  unhealthful  processes. 

4.  Employment  of  children:  (a)  Minimum  age  of  employment;  (t>)  during  the 
night;  (c)  in  unhealthful  processes. 

5.  Extension  and  application  of  the  international  conventions  adopted  at  Bern 
in  1906,  on  the  prohibition  of  night  work  for  women  employed  in  industry  and  the 
prohibition  of  the  use  of  white  phosphorus  in  the  manufacture  of  matches. 

In  the  same  session  of  April  IX,  1919,  the  Peace  Conference  ordered  its  secretariat 
general  to  request  the  seven  Governments  designated  in  the  annex  to  the  labor  part 
of  the  treaty  (United  States  of  America,  Great  Britain,  France,  Italy,  Japan, 
Belgium,  and  Switzerland)  to  form  the  international  organizing  committee  of  the 
Washington  Conference,  and  to  appoint  their  representatives  on  this  committee  to 
begin  its  labors. 

It  wull  be  remembered  that  by  the  terms  of  the  annex  the  convocation  and  the 
organization  of  the  first  meeting  were  to  be  undertaken  by  the  American  Government 
if  it  accepted  this  function.  The  American  Government  was  to  be  assisted,  as  far  as 
the  preparation  of  documents  was  concerned,  by  an  international  commission  called 
the  international  organizing  committee. 

It  will  be  remembered  also  that  on  August  11, 1919,  a  dispatch  from  the  Department 
of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America,  addressed  to  the  American  Embassy  at 
London  and  to  the  various  Governments  interested,  was  worded  as  follows  (I  quote 
the  terms  of  the  dispatch  addressed  to  London  and  transmitted  to  Paris): 

“The  President  of  the  United  States,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  part  13 
of  the  peace  treaty  between  the  allied  and  associated  powers  and  Germany,  signed 
at  Versailles  on  June  28, 1919,  and  under  authority  vested  in  him  by  Congress,  hereby 
convenes  the  first  meeting  of  the  annual  labor  conference,  to  assemble  in  Washing¬ 
ton  at  noon  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919.  The  Government  of  the  United 
States  extends  to  each  nation  which  is,  or  which  prior  to  said  meeting  shall  be¬ 
come,  a  member  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  as  defined  in  article  387, 
an  invitation  to  send  its  delegates  and  other  representatives  to  Washington,  for  the 
purpose  of  attending  such  conference.” 

From  this  date  the  international  organizing  committee,  which  had  begun  its  labors 
on  April  14,  with  a  view  to  the  first  meeting  of  the  conference,  has  cooperated  with 
the  American  Government  for  the  meeting  called  at  Washington,  and  early  in  Sep¬ 
tember  its  secretariat  established  itself  at  Washington  to  insure  as  far  as  possible 
that  this  cooperation  should  be  effective. 

The  present  report  will  sum  up  the  work  of  the.  committee,  all  of  which  has  to  do 
with  the  agenda.  It  will  comment  briefly  on  this  agenda,  which,  outside  the  five 
main  questions  enumerated  above,  can  contain  nothing  but  the  motions  and  projects 
necessary  to  the  functioning  of  the  International  Labor  Organization.  It  will  then 
give  the  names  of  the  delegates  and  advisers,  and  announce  the  justifications  and 
objections  that  have  been  addressed  to  it,  leaving  to  the  conference  the  examination 
of  these  objections,  on  which  the  committee  has  no  mandate  to  give  an  opinion. 
Finally,  in  a  last  chapter,  for  purposes  of  record,  it  will  set  forth  all  the  documents 
relative  to  the  admission  to  the  International  Labor  Organization  of  Germany, 
Austria,  and  possibly,  if  they  request  it,  of  other  nations  not  included  in  the  list  of 
45  States  named  in  the  peace  treaty  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations.  These  documents  concern  a  question  included  in  the  agenda,  pursuant  to 
a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers;  but  they  w  ill 
be  too  large  to  be  dealt  with  in  the  short  analysis  that  will  be  given  of  the  agenda. 
Moreover,  they  take  the  place  of  a  preliminary  report  on  this  question,  and  it  is  well 
to  present  them  separately,  in  order  to  assist  clearness  of  discussion. 

1.  On  the  organizing  committee,  the  United  States  has  been  represented  first  by 
Dr.  J  T.  Shot  well,  professor  at  Columbia  University,  and  then  by  Mr.  Samuel 
Gompers;  Great  Britain  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne;  France  by  M.  Arthur  Fontaine; 
Italy  by  Signor  di  Palma  Castiglione;  Japan  by  Mr.  M.  Oka;  Belgium  by  M.  Mahaim; 
and  Switzerland  by  M.  W  E.  Rappard,  professor  of  University  of  Geneva,  first,  and 
then  by  M.  Sulzer.  Except  for  Dr.  Shotwell,  Mr.  Gompers,  and  M.  Rappard,  the 
names  of  the  members  will  be  found  in  the  list  of  the  Government  delegates  to  the 
conference,  so  that  the  organizing  committee  is  complete  before  it. 

On  April  14  the  committee  met  at  Paris,  outlined  the  field  of  its  activities  and  its 
investigations,  and  instructed  Mr  H.  B.  Butler,  assistant  secretary,  British  Ministry 
of  Labor,  to  form  the  secretariat  at  London,  to  prepare  the  questionnaires,  to  collect 
the  documents,  to  analyze  the  replies,  and  to  undertake  the  editing  of  the  reports. 
It  was  a  large  task,  and  sufficient  time  could  not  be  allowed  for  it;  but  Mr.  Butler 
has  acquitted  himself  with  no  less  devotion  than  competence. 

From  May  6  to  May  9  the  committee  met  at  London,  adopted  the  questionnaires 
relative  to  the  first  five  questions  included  in  the  agenda  by  the  Peace  Conference, 
approved  the  terms  of  the  circular  which  was  sent  on  May  10,  1919,  to  the  45  States 
named  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations.  In  the  blue  reports 
that  have  been  distributed  you  have  the  text  ofthis  circular  and  of  the  questionnaires; 
the  circular  explained  the  reason  for  the  questionnaires,  the  importance  of  replying 
to  them  immediately,  and  the  work  before  the  future  conference. 

At  the  same  time  the  committee  found  itself  led  to  lay  the  foundations  ofthe  relations 
of  the  International  Labor  Organization  with  the  League  of  Nations,  which  is  at  the 
same  time  our  minister  of  finance  and  our  minister  of  justice,  and  on  which  depend 
both  our  budget  and  the  future  sanctions  of  the  engagements  that  the  nations  may 
be  brought  to  enter  into  with  each  other  in  the  matter  of  labor  legislation.  The 
secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  was  already  anxious  to  know  the  probable 
outlines  ofthe  permanent  labor  office,  and  the  working  of  the  conferences,  not  to 
interfere  with  your  independence  and  your  autonomy,  but  in  order  to  estimate  the 


expenses  that  would  be  incumbent  on  the  League  of  Nations,  which  it  might  have  to 
divide  among  the  nations  that  were  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organ¬ 
ization  He  was  also  anxious  to  have  the  list  of  the  States  of  chief  industrial  im¬ 
portance,  because  out  ofthe  12  persons  representing  the  Governments  on  the  govern- 
ingbody  ofthe  International  Labor  Office,  8arc  tobe  appointedfrom  among  the“mcm- 
bers”  industrially  the  most  important  (article  393).  Now,  as  we  shall  see  when 
we  come  to  a  summary  examination  of  the  agenda,  these  provisions  of  the  treaty 
must  be  carried  into  effect  immediately.  Therefore,  in  strictly  indispensable  mat¬ 
ters,  with  the  consent  ofthe  American  Government  and  at  the  request  ofthe  League 
of  Nations,  the  organizing  committee  has  been  obliged,  without  in  the  least  preju¬ 
dicing  the  decisions  of  the  future  governing  body,  to  fulfill  a  minimum  of  the  func¬ 
tions  of  that  body  in  order  to  facilitate  the  material  preparations  for  the  present 
conference. 

The  meetings  of  the  organizing  committee  held  in  Paris  on  June  28  and  29,  and  in 
London,  July  31  and  August  5,  were  occupied  in  answering  the  various  questions 
asked  by  the  different  Governments,  in  taking  note  of  the  relations  established 
with  the  League  of  Nations,  in  proposing  urgent  measures  relative  to  the  organization 
of  the  conference  by  the  American  Government,  in  discussing  the  draft  reports  on 
the  subjects  included  in  the  agenda,  in  drawing  up  a  draft  of  the  rules  for  the  inter¬ 
national  conference  (art.  401  of  the  peace  treaty  and  art.  17  of  the  statutes),  and  in 
proposing  a  provisional  list  ofthe  eight  States  of  chief  industrial  importance. 

Later,  on  August  20,  1919,  the  committee  summed  up  its  work  and  its  proposals 
in  a  circular  dated  August  20,  1919,  addressed  to  all  the  Governments,  and  through 
them  to  all  the  delegates  already  appointed.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  this 
circular  and  the  agenda  that  accompanied  it: 

“DISCUSSION  OF  QUESTIONS  CONCERNING  THE  LABOR  PART  OF  THE  TREATY . 

“The  committee  was  asked  whether  questions  concerning  the  constitution  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization  could  be  discussed  at  Washington,  or  whether 
they  could  only  be  raised  at  the  conference,  in  order  to  be  included,  if  the  conference 
should  so  decide,  in  the  agenda  for  a  subsequent  conference  in  accordance  with  article 
402  of  the  treaty. 

“The  committee  replied  that  in  its  opinion — 

“  ‘Under  article  400  of  the  treaty  the  agenda  for  each  meeting  will  in  future  be 
settled  by  the  governing  body,  who  are  bound  to  consider  any  suggestions  made  to 
them  by  any  of  the  Governments  concerned;  and  under  paragraph  3  of  article  402 
ttv  conference  may  decide  that  any  particular  subject  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda 
for  the  following  meeting.  In  the  case  of  this  year’s  meeting  the  agenda  is  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  annex  to  the  labor  convention,  and  it  would  not  appear  possible  to 
initiate  a  discussion  on  the  convention  itself  at  that  meeting,  especially  as  it  will 
have  been  accepted  by  all  the  States  represented  at  the  conference. 

“  ‘At  the  same  time,  in  order  to  avoid  any  misapprehension,  the  committee  desire 
to  state  that  in  accordance  with  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  Allied 
and  Associated  Powers  communicated  to  Germany  before  the  signature  of  the  treaty 
of  peace,  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Germany  to  the  International  Labor  Or¬ 
ganization  immediately  after  the  Washington  conference  will  be  included  in  the 
agenda,  but  that,  as  in  the  case  of  other  items  of  the  agenda,  this  question  is  not 
inserted  on  the  initiative  of  the  organizing  committee.’ 

“The  committee  has  drawn  up  the  inclosed  suggested  program  of  the  proceedings 
at  the  conference  at  Washington,  and  requests  that  copies  may  be  communicated  to 
each  of  the  delegates  nominated  by  your  Government. 

“The  committee  desires  to  confirm  its  telegram  of  August  12  with  regard  to  the 
question  of  the  eight  States  of  chief  industrial  importance  (art.  393  of  the  treaty), 
which  was  as  follows: 

‘“Article  393  ofthe  peace  treaty  provides  that  ofthe  12  persons  representing  Govern¬ 
ments  on  governing  body  of  International  Labor  Office,  eight  shall  be  nominated  by 
members  of  chief  industrial  importance  and  four  by  members  selected  by  Government 
delegates  of  remaining  members.  Any  question  as  to  which  are  eight  members  of 
chief  industrial  importance  must  be  decided  by  council  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

‘“Unless  question  of  the  eight  members  is  settled  before  Washington  conference, 
remaining  four  members  can  not  be  selected  at  conference,  which  should  result  in 
serious  delay  in  constituting  governing  body  and  labor  office.  • 

‘“Organizing  committee  have  accordingly  drawn  up  following  list  of  nine  States 
on  information  available,  though  owing  to  war  and  formation  of  new  States  statistics 
very  uncertain  and  compilation  of  list  very  difficult.  Question  of  admitting  Ger¬ 
many  to  the  labor  organization  after  the  Washington  conference  will  come  before 
conference  in  accordance  with  decision  of  Supreme  Council  of  Allied  and  Associated 
Powers.  If  admitted,  Germany  wll  be  entitled  to  a  seat  on  governngbody  and  last- 
named  State  will  lapse.  If  Germany  is  not  admitted  the  last-named  State  will  be 
included.  The  list  is  as  follows: 

United  States.  Belgium. 

Great  Britain.  Japan. 

France.  Switzerland. 

Germany.  Spain. 

Italy. 

“‘Committee  respectfully  suggests  any  objections  should  be  communicated  to  Sec¬ 
retary  Organizing  Committee,  53  Parliament  Street,  London,  before  September  10. 
Objections  will  be  referred  to  council  of  league  for  decision  before  meeting  of 
conference. 

“‘Fontaine,  President.’ 

“It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  this  question  should  be  decided  before  the 
conference  meets  in  October,  and  the  committee  hope  that  any  objections  which  may 
be  taken  to  the  list  proposed  by  them  may  be  sent  to  them  for  reference  to  the  council 
of  the  League  of  Nations,  by  the  date  mentioned  In  the  telegram. 


14 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


“As  stated  in  the  committee’s  letter  of  May  10,  the  secretariat  and  office  of  the 
committee  will  be  transferred  to  Washington  as  from  September  1.  It  is  requested 
that  communications  to  the  secretariat  after  August  30  should  be  addressed  to  Mr. 
H.  B.  Butler,  care  Department  of  Labor,  Washington,  except  in  the  case  of  replies 
relating  to  the  question  of  the  eight  States  of  chief  industrial  importance  which 
should  be  sent  to  53  Parliament  Street,  London,  as  stated  in  the  telegram  quoted 
above,  as  the  committee  itself  will  probably  not  proceed  to  Washington  before 
October,  in  view  of  the  postponement  of  the  conference  till  the  end  of  that 
month. 

“We  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  great  truth  and  respect,  your  obedient 
servants, 

“Arthur  Fontaine,  Chairman. 

“H.  B.  Butler,  Secretary." 

“SUGGESTED  PROGRAM  OF  THE  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE  AT  WASH¬ 
INGTON. 

“1.  Opening  address. 

“2.  Appointment  of  the  president  and  vice  presidents  of  the  conference. 

“3.  Report  of  the  president  of  the  organizing  committee. 

“4.  Appointment  of  the  secretariat. 

“5.  Appointment  of  committee  on  examination  of  credentials. 

"6.  Submission  of  draft  standing  orders. 

“  7.  Appointment  of  committee  of  selection  (draft  standing  orders,  article  7). 

“8.  Appointment  of  commission  to  consider  the  organization  of  the  International 
Labor  Office. 

“9.  Application  of  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  or  48-hour  week. 

“10.  Question  of  preventing  or  providing  against  unemployment. 

“11.  Women’s  employment:  (a)  Before  and  after  childbirth  (including  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  maternity  benefits).  (6)  During  the  night  (including  the  Bern  Convention 
of  1906  on  night  work  for  women),  (c)  In  unhealthful  processes. 

“12.  The  employment  of  children:  (a)  Minimum  age  of  admission.  (6)  During 
the  night,  (c)  In  unhealthful  processes. 

“13.  Extension  and  application  of  the  international  convention  adopted  at  Bern 
in  1906  on  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  white  phosphorus  in  the  manufacture  of 
matches. 

“  14.  Communication  of  the  letter  of  the  19th  May,  1919,  from  the  secretary  general 
of  the  Peace  Conference  conveying  the  suggestion  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the 
Allied  and  Associated  Powers  on  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Germany  into  the 
International  Labor  Organization. 

“15.  Constitution  of  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 

“16.  Date  of  next  conference.” 

2.  Commentary  on  the  draft  of  the  program  or  agenda. — A  definitive  draft,  for  at 
least  the  first  two  days  of  the  meeting,  has  been  circulated  to  the  members  of  the 
oonference,  at  the  opening  sitting. 

The  first  remark  to  be  made  on  our  draft  of  the  agenda  is  that  the  numbers  assigned 
to  the  questions  in  no  way  affect  the  order  of  discussion,  which  the  conference  will 
determine  for  itself.  In  making  this  draft  we  have  simply  made  a  complete  and 
logical  enumeration  of  the  questions  for  discussion. 

The  second  remark  is  that  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Germany  no  longer 
presents  itself  under  the  conditions  that  obtained  on  August  20,  the  date  on  which 
the  circular  was  drafted.  The  admission  of  Germany,  Austria,  and  possibly  other 
countries,  must  be  considered  by  the  conference  at  once,  as  soon  as  it  has  a  constitu¬ 
tion  and  before  it  begins  its  labors.  Such  is  the  sense  of  the  decisions  and  recom¬ 
mendations  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers,  which  you 
will  find  reproduced  in  part  4  of  this  report,  and  w'hich  constitute  the  commentary 
on  this  very  important  point  in  the  agenda. 

We  have  no  comment  to  make  on  the  first  four  items  of  the  program  which  concern 
the  formation  of  the  bureau  and  the  secretariat. 

No.  5.  The  committee  on  the  verification  of  credentials,  provided  for  under  No.  5, 
is  necessary  in  order  to  conform  with  the  last  paragraph  of  article  389  of  the  treaty. 

“The  credentials  of  the  delegates  and  their  technical  advisers  shall  be  verified 
by  the  conference,  which  may,  by  a  two-thirds  majority  vote,  cast  by  the  delegates 
present,  refuse  to  admit  any  delegate  or  adviser  that  it  may  consider  not  to  have 
been  appointed  in  conformity  with  the  terms  of  the  present  article.” 

For  this  matter,  which  must  be  dealt  with  at  once,  it  is  proposed  in  article  3  of 
the  draft  standing  orders  that  a  committee  of  three  members  be  appointed  by  the 
conference  and  the  submission  of  a  brief  report  of  the  organizing  committee:  “For 
the  Washington  conference  the  international  organizing  committee  shall  submit, 
the  day  before  the  opening,  a  report  on  all  credentials  which  have  reached  it,  irre¬ 
spective  of  the  date  of  receipt.” 

The  commission  and  the  conference  will  thoroughly  examine  all  questions  which 
may  arise;  the  committee  has  no  mandate  to  suggest  solutions  but  only  to  explain 
the  state  of  the  matter. 

Because  of  the  fact  that  the  names  of  the  delegates  and  advisers  came  for  the  most 
part  to  the  knowledge  of  the  committee  at  the  last  moment,  that  most  of  them  were 
accompanied  by  no  official  documents,  that  the  objections  received  were  unimportant, 
and  that  necessarily,  for  this  first  conference,  the  rules  for  the  verification  of  credentials 
would  be  very  liberal,  the  committee  has  confined  itself  to  the  short  explanation  that 
constitutes  part  3  of  the  present  report. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  the  credentials  of  all  delegates  and  advisers,  in  conformity 
with  the  general  rule,  are  accounted  valid  until  proved  to  be  invalid. 

No.  6.  The  draft  standing  orders  have  been  distributed  to  ail  the  members  of  the 
conference.  They  are  founded  upon  the  rules  in  force  in  various  parliaments,  at 
the  same  time  taking  into  account  the  peculiar  character  of  our  conference,  which 


includes  three  parts— the  Government  representatives,  the  employers’  representa¬ 
tives,  and  the  workers’  representatives. 

Any  comment  is  superfluous,  since  a  commission  of  the  conference  will  examine 
the  draft,  will  make  a  report,  and  will  propose  such  changes  as  may  seem  necessary 

If  we  propose  that  these  rules  be  put  into  force  temporarily  at  the  opening  of  the 
meeting,  and  before  their  final  adoption,  it  is  because  it  is  necessary  to  give  the  con¬ 
ference  and  the  commission  a  certain  time  to  examine  them  and  because,  moreover, 
it  is  impossible  to  leave  a  large  assembly  without  rules  for  procedure— an  assembly 
that  is  composed  of  100  delegates  and  a  number  of  advisers  that  may  be  twice  as 
many,  that  is,  nearly  309  in  all 

No.  7.  No.  7  provides  for  the  appointment  of  a  selection  committee,  if  our  proposal 
to  put  the  draft  standing  orders  in  force  temporarily  is  approved. 

This  committee  would  be  instructed  to  draw  up  for  submission  to  the  conference 
lists  for  the  various  commissions  that  the  conference  may  judge  necessary  to  form 
in  order  to  deal  with  the  different  items  of  the  agenda.  It  appeared  to  us  that  in  so 
large  an  assembly,  consisting  of  members  belonging  to  so  large  a  number  of  nations 
and  only  slightly  acquainted  with  each  other,  in  an  assembly  formed,  moreover,  of 
three  distinct  parts  which  must  be  represented  on  all  commissions,  some  selection 
committee  was  necessary.  The  final  decision  is,  however,  reserved  for  the  conference 
itself.  It  is  possible  that  the  conference  may  see  fit  to  extend  the  powers  of  this 
commission  and  to  confer  on  it  certain  powers  concerning  the  regulation  of  the 
agenda,  at  least  until  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  is 
appointed. 

No.  8.  It  seems  necessary  that  the  conference  should  make  known  its  views  on 
the  organization  of  the  International  Labor  Office  and  should  give  certain  directions 
to  the  governing  body.  A  commission  might  well  make  proposals  in  this  matter. 

Nos.  9,  10,  11,  12,  13.  We  have  nothing  to  add  to  the  reports  distributed  to  the 
conference  on  the  subjects  which  constitute  the  main  questions  submitted  to  it  for 
consideration. 

We  need  only  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  recommendations  attached  to 
the  reports  are  not  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  the  committee  and  do  not  rep¬ 
resent  their  personal  opinions  which  they  are  prepared  to  defend  before  the  con¬ 
ference.  They  are  the  result  of  the  replies  made  to  the  questionnaires.  It  should 
be  added  that  for  certain  matters,  notably  for  the  eight-hour  day,  the  situation  in 
various  countries  was  changing  as  the  report  was  being  drawn  up  and  that  a  com¬ 
pletely  accurate  report  was  impossible. 

The  conference  will  decide  on  what  matters  it  wishes  to  appoint  a  commission  to 
make  a  new  report  and  on  what  matters  it  judges  that  the  reports  distributed  already 
offer  a  sufficient  basis  for  discussion. 

No.  15.  Constitution  of  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office:  We 
have  placed  the  appointment  of  the  governing  body  at  the  end  of  the  agenda,  because 
it  seems  desirable  that  the  delegates  should  have  had  an  opportunity  to  become 
acquainted  with  each  other  before  proceeding  to  deal  with  this  question. 

The  difficulties  experienced  in  the  nomination  of  eight  representatives  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  scale  of  industrial  importance  have  not  yet  been  solved.  As  indicated 
in  their  letter  of  August  20,  1919,  the  committee  has  suggested  the  following  list: 

The  United  States,  Great  Britain,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Belgium,  Japan, 
Switzerland,  Spain,  on  the  understanding  that  should  Germany  be  admitted  to  the 
International  Labor  Organization,  Spain  would  rank  ninth. 

The  above  list  has  been  objected  to  by  Canada,  Poland,  and  Sweden. 

Their  objections  were  transmitted  with  a  report  to  the  Secretary  General  of  the 
League  of  Nations  at  the  beginning  of  October.  A  decision  should  be  arrived  at  at 
the  first  sitting  of  the  Council  of  the  League  of  Nations.  It  does  not  appear  advisable 
to-day  to  examine  fully  the  reasons  which  inspired  the  action  of  the  committee,  as 
the  conference  will  not  have  to  determine  this  question. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  stated  that  we  have  found  it  impossible  to  take 
into  account  the  data  supplied  by  the  new  States  whose  borders  were  still  ill-defined 
and  whose  statistics  relating  to  the  period  before  the  war  were  of  no  assistance. 

Our  only  purpose  in  drawing  up  the  above  list  has  been  to  facilitate  as  much  as 
possible  the  drawing  up  of  a  final  list  and  the  decision  of  the  League  of  Nations,  so 
as  to  make  possible  the  appointment  of  the  governing  body. 

No.  16.  Date  of  next  meeting  of  the  conference;  suggestions  should  be  examined 
in  the  light  of  the  last  paragraph  of  article  402  of  the  peace  treaty. 

“If  the  conference  decides  (otherwise  than  under  the  preceding  paragraph)  by 
two-thirds  of  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present  that  any  subject  shall  be  con¬ 
sidered  by  the  conference,  that  subject  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda  for  the  follow¬ 
ing  meeting.” 

It  also  appears  advisable  to  consider  the  following  passage  contained  in  a  resolution 
of  August  29,  1919,  of  the  Supreme  Allied  Council; 

“It  was  decided  in  the  treaty  with  Austria  not  to  refer  to  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  allied  workers  on  enemy  territory,  and  vice  versa,  and  to  submit  the  proposal  of 
the  labor  section,  June  4, 1919,  to  the  International  Labor  Conference  at  Washington.” 

To  the  same  order  also  belongs  a  proposal  which  the  present  chairman  has  been 
asked  by  the  French  Government  to  offer  relating  to  the  holding  of  a  special  com¬ 
mittee  intrusted  with  the  study  of  employment  at  sea  and  the  enforcement  of  the 
eight-hour  day.  It  is  possible  that  other  suggestions  have  been  made  which  have 
not  been  brought  to  our  knowledge. 

3.  Summary  report  on  the  credentials  of  delegates  and  advisers. — At  the  moment 
when  this  report  is  being  drawn  up,  the  situation,  so  far  as  the  various  Governments 
have  notified  the  selection  of  their  delegates  and  advisers  and  so  far  as  the  various 
objections  which  the  above  nominations  have  raised,  is  as  follows:  A  list  of  the  names 
of  the  various  delegates  and  advisers  has  been  printed  by  the  general  secretariat  and 
handed  over  to  the  members  of  the  conference. 

Whatever  information  has  been  received  is  now  submitted  to  the  conference. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


15 


Name  of  country. 

Governments. 

Employers. 

Employees. 

Dele¬ 

gates. 

Advisers. 

Dele¬ 

gates. 

Advisers. 

Dele¬ 

gates. 

Advisers. 

2 

] 

1 

2 

2 

4 

1 

1 

9 

1 

2 

Canada . 

2 

12 

1 

5 

1 

5 

1 

2 

1 

2 

i 

4 

Denmark . 

2 

5 

1 

i 

i 

3 

2 

France . 

2 

3 

i 

4 

i 

4 

Great  Britain . 

2 

6 

l 

4 

i 

7 

2 

i 

i 

2 

1 

2 

1 

i 

i 

2 

4 

l 

i 

2 

Japan . 

2 

9 

i 

5 

i 

7 

2 

i 

i 

1 

2 

2 

i 

i 

1 

i 

2 

2 

i 

i 

2 

4 

i 

2 

2 

1 

1 

i 

1 

2 

i 

1 

2 

4 

l 

2 

2 

1 

i 

2 

2 

l 

2 

] 

The  appointment  of  German  and  Austrian  delegates  has  been  announced,  although 
the  names  are  not  known.  It  is  expected  that  China  willsend  a  delegation.  It  is  not 
certain  that  the  Australian  delegation  will  arrive  in  time. 

Considering  that  many  reports  on  nominations  are  incomplete,  as  nominations  have 
been  delayed  beyond  all  expectation  by  the  difficulties  that  have  arisen  concerning 
the  participation  of  several  nations  as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  the  peace  treaty  has 
been  ratified  by  only  a  few  nations,  the  committee  finds  it  impossible  to  give  its 
opinion  concerning  such  nominations  as  have  been  made.  It  will  be  enough  to  state 
that  the  nominations  have  been  officially  transmitted  by  the  various  Governments 
and  also  to  mention  an  objection  from  the  French  Catholic  trade-unions  transmitted 
to  the  French  Ministry  of  Labor  and  answered  by  a  letter  that  has  been  joined  to  the 
present  report. 

The  decision  now  lies  with  the  committee  for  the  verification  of  credentials  and 
with  the  conference. 

4.  Documents  relating  to  the  admission  of  Germany,  Austria,  etc.,  to  the  International 
Labor  Organizationand  the  Washington  conference.'— On  the  15th  of  May,  1919,  the  labor 
committee  which  was  called  together  as  a  result  of  discussions  of  the  Supreme  Council 
on  the  30th  of  April  and  10th  of  May,  1919,  in  order  to  examine  the  note  of  the  German 
delegation  on  the  peace  conditions,  was  convened  by  its  president,  Mr.  G.  N.  Barnes, 
who  communicated  to  it  a  question  from  the  secretary  general  of  the  Peace  Conference 
relating  to  the  date  of  admission  of  Germany  into  the  International  Labor  Organiza¬ 
tion. 

Mr.  G.  N.  Barnes  suggested  the  following  letter  as  a  reply  and  this  was  unani¬ 
mously  adopted: 

"Paris,  May  IB,  1919. 

"Sir:  The  committee  of  the  labor  commission  has  considered  the  question  submitted 
by  you  on  behalf  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers  in  your 


letter  of  the  14th. 

“The  question  is  whether  Germany  should  be  admitted  to  early  participation  in 
the  labor  scheme  of  organization.  The  committee  answer  in  the  affirmative. 

“During  the  sittings  of  the  labor  commission  several  members  expressed  the  view 
that  early  admission  of  the  Germans  was  desirable,  so  that  Germany  might  be  under 
the  same  obligation  in  respect  of  labor  as  other  advanced  industrial  countries.  We 
believe  that  the  commission  would  have  expressed  itself  in  that  sense,  but  for  the 
fact  that  the  scheme  was  framed  as  part  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

«  But  il  the  Germansare  to  be  kept  out  of  the  league  for  any  considerable  time,  the 
committee  think  that  they  should  be  admitted  earlier  to  the  labor  organization. 

“The  committee  would  not  suggest  admittance  before  the  Washington  conference. 

“[Here  three  reasons  were  given  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  insert  in  view  of  the  deci¬ 
sions  subsequently  given.)” 

“We  are  of  opinion,  however,  that  she  might  be  admitted  immediately  after  the 
Washington  conference.  The  further  question  arises  as  to  the  terms  of  admission. 
Unless  otherwise  provided  for  she  would  be  entitled  as  one  of  the  eight  chief  industrial 
countries  to  a  place  on  the  governing  body.  We  should  give  her  such  place  if  she 
came  in.” 

“We  are  further  of  opinion  that  if  the  Supreme  Council  indorses  the  admission  as 
suggested  above,  the  recommendations  and  conventions  adopted  by  the  Washington 
conference  should  be  sent  to  the  Government  of  Germany. 

“Since  this  matter  may  also  affect  the  League  of  Nations  it  is  suggested  it  should  also 
be  communicated  to  the  Committee  on  the  League  of  Nations. 

“George  N.  Barnes,  President. 

"Dutasta, 

Secretary-General,  Peace  Conference." 


i  This  part  of  the  report  was  not  read  by  Mr.  Fontaine  but  was  circulated  at  the 
session  among  all  the  delegates. 


To  this  letter  Mr.  Dutasta,  secretary  general  of  the  Peace  Conference,  replied  by 
the  following  two  letters  addressed  to  Mr.  G.  N.  Barnes: 

“  Paris,  May  19, 1919. 

"Sir:  The  Council  of  the  Principal  and  Allied  and  Associated  Powers  at  their  sitting 
of  May  17  decided  to  give  effect  to  the  proposal  of  the  labor  commission  relating  to 
the  participation  of  Germany  in  the  new  labor  organization. 

“I  should  accordingly  be  grateful  if  you  would  inform  the  Washington  conference 
that  Germany  will  be  admitted  after  the  close  of  the  conference  and  under  the  con¬ 
ditions  set  forth  in  the  letter  of  May  15  from  the  labor  commission. 

“The  proceedings  of  the  Washington  conference  should  accordingly  be  communi¬ 
cated  to  the  German  Government. 

“Assuring  you  of  my  highest  consideration,  I  am, 

“Dutasta.” 


“Paris,  May  27, 1919. 

“Sir:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  communicate  with  you  on  May  19  with  regard  to  the 
conditions  of  the  admission  of  Germany  into  the  future  International  Labor  Organ¬ 
ization. 

“I  now  wish  to  communicate  more  definitely  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Allied 
Council  which  is  in  the  following  terms: 

“  ‘The  Council  of  the  Principal  and  Allied  and  Associated  Powers  has  decided  to 
transmit  to  the  Washington  conference  the  letter  of  May  15  signed  by  Mr.  George  N. 
Bames,  of  the  British  delegation,  James  T.  Shotwell,  of  the  American  delegation, 
Arthur  Fontaine,  of  the  French  delegation,  and  G.  de  Growne,  of  the  Belgium 
delegation,  recommending  that  Germany  should  be  admitted  to  participate  in  the 
new  labor  organization  immediately  after  the  Washington  conference.  That  letter 
will  be  transmitted  to  the  Washington  conference  with  a  recommendation  from  the 
Council  of  the  Principal  Allied  and  Associated  Powers  (M.  Clemenceau,  President 
Wilson,  Lloyd-George,  and  N.  Orlando)  that  it  should  be  given  favorable  considera¬ 
tion.’ 

“With  assurances  of  my  highest  consideration,  I  am, 

“  Dutasta.” 


It  should  also  be  stated  that  during  the  sitting  of  the  committee  of  May  15,  Mr. 
Arthur  Fontaine  had  brought  forward  the  question  as  to  whether  it  was  not  neces¬ 
sary,  in  order  to  give  effect  to  the  proposal  which  had  been  made,  to  modify  article 
1  of  the  convention  (art.  387  of  the  peace  treaty). 

This  suggestion  was  not  retained  by  Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine,  who  had  been  author¬ 
ized  in  his  capacity  as  secretary  general  of  the  Commission  on  International  Labor 
Legislation  to  bring  the  question  before  the  secretary  general  of  the  Peace  Conference 

This  was  done  in  a  letter  of  May  15, 1919. 

Neither  the  Supreme  Council  nor  the  drafting  committee  thought  it  useful  to  act 
on  this  suggestion.  They  were  of  the  opinion  that  their  decision  would  not  necessi¬ 
tate  any  modification  of  article  387  of  the  peace  treaty.  This  fact  is  of  special  impor¬ 
tance  as  it  preceded  the  signature  of  the  peace  treaty. 

It  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  17th  of 
May  had  been  taken  and  communicated  to  the  Germans  before  the  signature  of  the 
peace  treaty. 

On  the  28th  of  August,  1919,  the  secretary  general  of  the  Peace  Conference  sent  to 
Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine  the  following  resolution: 

“ADMISSION  OF  AUSTRIAN  WORKERS’  REPRESENTATIVES  TO  THE  WASHINGTON 

CONFERENCE. 


“August  28,  1919. 

“It  has  been  decided  to  submit  urgently  to  the  labor  commission  the  proposal  of 
the  Italian  delegation  to  admit  the  Austrian  workers’  representatives  to  the  labor 
conference  which  is  to  meet  at  Washington  during  the  autumn. 

“The  labor  commission  is  asked  to  consider  this  question  and  to  take  into  account 
the  consequences  which  might  result  as  regards  the  question  of  the  admission  of 
Germany  to  the  same  conference  in  the  way  already  decided. 

“The  commission  accordingly  will  put  forward  proposals  as  regards  the  admission 
of  both  these  countries  to  the  conference.” 

But  next  day,  the  29th  of  August,  the  same  question  was  brought  up  for  decision 
in  the  Supreme  Council  without  waiting  for  the  reply  from  the  labor  commission. 


“August  29,  1919. 

“It  was  decided  to  adjourn  the  decision  on  the  question  of  the  admission  of  the 
German  and  Austrian  delegates  to  the  International  Conference  at  Washington  in 
order  to  allow  time  for  Mr.  Balfour  and  Mr.  Polk  to  consult  their  Governments.” 

Nevertheless  the  Commission  on  International  Labor  Legislation  met  on  the  6th  of 
September,  1919.  Mr.  Bames  presided  over  the  meeting  which  was  not  complete. 
The  commission  decided  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  the  Germans  and  the  Austrians 
to  the  W ashington  conference,  but  was  not  able  to  arrive  at  a  precise  formula  as  regards 
the  procedure  to  be  followed. 

The  11th  of  September,  1919,  the  Supreme  Council  adopted  the  following  resolution, 
Mr.  Balfour  and  Mr.  Polk  having  communicated  to  them  the  opinion  of  their 
Governments: 

“ADMISSION  OF  GERMAN  AND  AUSTRIAN  DELEGATES  AT  THE  INTERNATIONAL  LABOR 
CONFERENCE  AT  WASHINGTON. 

“September  11,  1919. 

“It  was  decided  that  the  question  of  the  admission  of  German  and  Austrian  dele¬ 
gates  to  the  forthcoming  labor  congress  at  Washington  should  be  left  to  the  decision 
of  that  Congress.  In  the  meantime,  the  Allied  and  Associated  Governments  would 
put  no  obstacles  in  the  way  of  German  or  Austrian  delegates  desirous  of  proceeding 
to  Washington  in  anticipation  of  a  decision  in  their  favor.” 

On  the  18th  of  September  the  Supreme  Council  added  to  its  decision  o.'  the  11th  of 
September  the  following  resolution: 


16 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


“The  American  delegation  is  requested,  in  the  name  of  the  conference,  to  communi¬ 
cate  to  the  German  and  Austrian  delegations  the  decision  of  September  11  regarding 
the  admission  of  German  and  Austrian  delegates  to  the  International  Labor  Congress 
at  Washington. ’’ 

In  consequence  of  this  resolution  the  American  delegation  to  the  Peace  Conference 
addressed  on  the  13th  of  September  the  following  communication  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  Peace  Conference: 

“Paris,  September  IS,  1919. 

“  The  secretary  general  of  the  American  delegation  presents  his  compliments  to 
the  secretary  general  of  the  Peace  Conference  and,  in  conformity  with  the  resolution 
adopted  by  the  Supreme  Council  on  the  8th  of  September,  1919,  in  which  the  Ameri¬ 
can  delegates  were  asked  in  the  name  of  the  conference  to  communicate  to  the  Ger¬ 
man  and  Austrian  delegations  the  decision  of  September  11  relating  to  the  admission 
of  German  and  Austrian  delegates  to  the  International  Labor  Conference  at  Washing¬ 
ton,  has  the  honor  to  inform  the  secretary  general  of  the  Peace  Conference  that  com¬ 
munications  relating  to  the  above  subject  have  been  sent  to-day  to  the  heads  of  the 
German  and  Austrian  delegations  respectively.” 

Finally,  on  the  23d  of  September,  1919,  the  Finnish  delegation  sent  the  following 
letter  to  the  president  of  the  Peace  Conference:” 

“Paris,  September SS,  1919. 

“Sir:  According  to  the  annex  to  section  1  of  part  13  of  the  Treaty  of  Versailles, 
the  first  meeting  of  the  labor  conference  will  take  place  in  Washington  in  1919  and 
the  convening  of  this  first  meeting  will  be  undertaken  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  The  Finnish  Republic,  although  it  does  not  appear 
among  the  original  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  nor  among  the  States  invited 
to  adhere  to  the  covenant  of  the  league,  is,  nevertheless,  anxious  to  be  represented  at 
the  first  meeting  of  the  labor  conference  and,  through  the  intermediary  of  its  repre¬ 
sentatives  at  Washington,  has  entered  into  communication  with  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  with  the  object  of  being  allowed  to  participate  in  this  conference 
and  has  been  informed  that  its  admission  would  be  possible  but  conditional  on  the 
consent  of  the  Peace  Conference.  As  I  have  been  asked  by  my  Government  to 
attempt  to  secure  this  consent,  I  have  the  honor  to  ask  your  excellency  to  be  so  good 
as  to  let  me  know  if  the  allied  and  associated  Governments  consider  favorably  the 
idea  of  the  admission  of  the  representatives  of  Finland  to  the  approaching  labor 
conference  at  Washington. 

“  Euken.” 

On  the  2d  of  October,  1919,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Supreme 
Council: 

“  October  2, 1919. 

“Admission  of  Norway,  Finland,  and  Netherlands  to  the  Washington  conference. 

“It  was  decided  that  the  question  raised  by  the  note  of  the  secretary  general  of  the 
International  Commission  of  Labor  relating  to  the  admission  of  Finland,  Norway, 
and  Netherlands  to  the  approaching  conference  at  Washington  should  be  left  to 
the  decision  of  this  conference. 

“It  was  also  decided  that  the  American  delegation  should  notify  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  International  Labor  Commission  that  no  obstacle  will  be  placed  by 
the  Allied  and  Associated  Governments  to  the  granting  of  passports  to  the  Finnish, 
Norwegian,  and  Dutch  representatives  who  may  desire  to  proceed  to  Washington.” 

Norway  and  Netherlands  appear  in  this  resolution  as  the  result  of  a  request  for 
information  which  they  had  addressed  to  the  American  delegation,  but  they  appear 
in  the  resolution  as  the  result  of  misapprehension  for  they  are  included  among  the 
45  States  whose  names  appear  in  the  list  annexed  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations.  They  are,  therefore,  in  the  same  position  as  all  the  other  States  in  the  list 
and  no  special  question  arises  in  respect  of  them. 

As  the  result  of  certain  observations  made  to  the  secretary  general  of  the  Peace 
Conference  by  Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine,  it  was  recognized  that  the  resolution  should  only 
refer  to  Finland  and  that  Norway  and  Netherlands  should  be  omitted. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France) — (after  reading  the  first  three  parts  of  his 
report).  Mr.  President,  there  is  only  one  more  section  to  this  report, 
namely,  the  documents  relative  to  the  admission  of  Germany  and 
Austria  and  other  countries  to  the  International  Labor  Organiza¬ 
tion  and  to  the  conference  at  Washington;  it  is  evidently  the  most 
important  part  of  the  report. 

I  have  here  the  copy  in  French  of  the  whole  of  this  part  of  the 
report;  we  have  also  the  copy,  in  French  and  English,  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  resolution,  and  we  are  expecting  the  English  copy  at  any  mo¬ 
ment.  I  wonder  if  it  would  not  be  wise  to  wait  for  a  few  minutes 
until  this  can  come,  for  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  ouf  colleagues 
to  follow  the  reading  of  this  section  of  the  documents  without  having 
them  before  them. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  report  of  the  organizing 
committee.  It  is  now  before  you  for  such  action  as  you  desire  to 
take;  but  before  proceeding  to  take  any  action  on  the  part  of  the 
conference  there  are  two  memoranda  that  I  would  ask  the  Secre¬ 
tary  to  read,  as  one  of  them  at  least  affects  the  manner  of  presenting 
the  debate. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  committee  on  organization). 
The  first  question  which  I  wish  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the 
conference  is  about  interpretation.  It  would  greatly  facilitate 


the  proceedings  if  delegates  would  divide  their  speeches  into  periods 
as  far  as  possible  and  allow  the  interpreter  to  translate  at  the  end  of 
each  period.  Unless  this  is  done,  interpretations  are  liable  to  be 
inaccurate  and  give  a  false  impression  of  the  speaker’s  meaning.  In 
this  morning’s  session  the  interpreters  found  that  they  had  difficulty 
in  interpreting  correctly  some  of  the  speeches  that  were  made, 
because  they  were  too  long,  and  that  they  had  forgotten  the  precise 
wording  that  had  been  used  at  the  beginning  of  the  speech  by  the 
time  that  they  came  to  translate  it  at  the  end. 

The  second  matter  which  I  wish  to  mention  is  in  regard  to  the 
seating  accommodations.  For  this  first  day  it  was  necessary  to 
make  a  rather  provisional  arrangement.  In  order  to  allow  all  the 
members  of  the  conference  to  be  present  at  the  opening  sitting,  all 
the  advisers  were  allowed  to  take  their  places  on  the  floor.  Under 
article  383  of  the  treaty  it  is  laid  down  that  each  delegate  may  be 
accompanied  by  two  advisers  on  each  occasion,  and  that  means  by 
two  advisers  only;  and  in  future  it  will  greatly  facilitate  the  seating 
of  the  conference  if  that  rule  is  observed. 

It  is  therefore  suggested  that  each  delegate  should  designate 
beforehand  the  two  advisers  who  are  entitled  to  accompany  him  to 
each  sitting  and  to  insure  that  no  other  adviser  accompanies  him  to 
that  sitting.  Advisers  who  are  not  entitled  to  be  present  on  the 
floor  will  be  able  to  find  seats  in  the  other  portion  of  the  room. 

This  rule  will  enable  the  secretary  to  allot  definite  seats  to  the 
advisers  of  each  delegation  in  its  immediate  vicinity,  which  this 
morning  has  not  been  possible  owing  to  the  very  large  number;  and 
the  observance  of  this  rule  seems  necessary  in  order  that  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  the  conference  may  be  conducted  without  crowding  and 
inconvenience. 

I  also  would  like  to  say  that  some  rearrangement  of  the  seating 
accommodation  will  be  made  as  soon  as  the  opportunity  permits; 
that  is  to  say,  as  soon  as  we  have  a  day  in  which  to  make  the  neces¬ 
sary  changes.  And  as  soon  as  that  rearrangement  has  been  made, 
I  hope  that  the  seating  arrangements  will  be  much  more  convenient 
in  every  respect,  and  that  the  delegates  will  be  much  more  com¬ 
fortable  than  they  have  been  to-day;  but  I  ask  them  to  look  at  to-day 
as  an  exceptional  occasion,  and  I  hope  to  provide  them  with  better 
facilities  hereafter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  of  the  British  delegation, 
is  recognized. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman,  ladies, 
and  gentlemen,  I  would  like  to  say  that  we  have  heard  with  great 
interest  the  statement  made  by  M.  Fontaine  on  behalf  of  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee,  and  I  venture  to  submit  a  resolution  in  connec¬ 
tion  therewith. 

That  this  meeting  expresses  their  thanks  to  the  committee  oi  organization  and  to 
M.  Arthur  Fontaine  for  the  admirable  manner  in  which  they  have  accomplished  the 
preliminary  steps  in  the  organization  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  and  for 
the  important  report  just  presented,  and  the  delegates  request  that  the  report  be 
circulated  and  that  after  the  provisional  adoption  of  the  draft  standing  orders,  the 
conference  be  adjourned  until  to-morrow  to  enable  the  report  to  be  circulated 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  France  is  recognized. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  The  proposal  of  Mr.  Majoribanks  sug¬ 
gesting  that  we  adjourn  this  session  until  to-morrow,  in  order  that 
we  may  have  a  more  thorough  understanding  of  the  report  which 
has  been  just  read  to  us,  is  accepted  by  my  colleague,  Mr.  Jouhaux, 
and  myself.  I  do  not  think  that  there  will  be  any  opposition  to 
this,  as  we  are  all  interested  in  doing  the  best  work,  and  in  order  to 
do  this  best  work,  it  is  necessary  to  know  what  the  question  is  which 
is  submitted  to  us. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  Ecuador  is  recognized. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador,).  Inasmuch  as  the  report  which  has 
just  been  presented  by  Mr.  Fontaine  is  exceedingly  interesting, 
I  wish  to  request  that  a  Spanish  translation  be  made  also.  There 
are  25  persons  here  in  this  conference  who  belong  to  Spanish¬ 
speaking  nations,  and  speak  Spanish.  There  are  18  nations  here 
represented  speaking  Spanish,  and,  for  their  study  and  clear  under¬ 
standing  of  the  matter,  I  suggest  that  the  report  be  also  translated 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


17 


in  Spanish  before  the  meeting  adjourns,  for  the  use  of  all  the  people 
who  do  not  understand  or  who  are  not  well  enough  acquainted  with 
the  English  and  French  language. 

Viscount  de  EZA  (Spain).  The  proposal  of  the  delegate  from 
Ecuador  is  seconded  by  the  delegation  from  Spain. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  proposal  as  presented 
by  the  delegate  from  Ecuador  and  seconded  by  the  delegate  from 
Spain,  proposing  that  the  report  of  the  committee  on  organization  be 
translated  and  printed  in  Spanish.  What  is  your  pleasure? 

Mr.  Greenwood,  one  of  the  assistant  secretaries,  will  make  a 
statement. 

Mr.  GREENWOOD.  In  reply  to  the  proposal  of  the  gentleman 
from  Ecuador,  I  should  like  to  state  that  we  have  organized  a  corps 
of  Spanish  translators,  who  are  now  at  work,  and  that  not  only  all 
important  documents,  but  the  entire  proceedings  of  this  conference 
will  be  translated  each  evening  into  Spanish,  printed  during  the 
night,  and  within  two  or  three  days  I  hope  to  be  able  to  furnish  you 
complete  copies  of  everything  that  is  said  in  this  hall,  in  Spanish, 
each  morning  at  9  o’clock.  [Applause.] 

I  wish  to  say,  gentlemen,  that  this  is  a  matter  which  is  entirely 
apart  from  the  official  conduct  of  this  conference  and  is  a  matter 
which  is  being  done  outside  for  the  benefit  of  the  Spanish-speaking 
countries  which  are  represented  here. 

The  PRESIDENT.  In  view  of  the  statement  that  has  just  been 
made  by  Mr.  Greenwood,  may  I  suggest  to  the  Ecuadorian  and 
Spanish  delegations  the  withdrawal  of  the  pending  proposition. 

Viscount  de  EZA  (Spain — speaking  first  in  Spanish  and  then  in 
French).  I  will  now  try  to  repeat  in  French  what  I  have  just  been 
saying  in  Spanish.  French  is  a  language  which  I  admire  greatly, 
but  which  I  do  not  speak  very  well. 

We  do  not  see  any  objection  to  withdrawing  the  motion  so  far  as 
it  concerns  the  report  of  Mr.  Fontaine.  The  representative  from 
Ecuador  has  asked  that  the  report  of  Mr.  Fontaine  be  translated  into 
Spanish,  but  we  realize  the  difficulty  this  work  would  entail,  inasmuch 
as  the  resolution  is  to  be  discussed  either  to-morrow  or  the  day  after. 
But  it  is  quite  understood,  Mr.  Secretary,  that  this  document,  as 
well  as  others,  will  be  translated  into  Spanish  and  that  they  will  be 
published  in  the  official  report.  I  may  say  in  the  name  of  Spain  and 
also  in  the  name  of  the  16  or  18  nations  of  America  who  are  repre¬ 
sented  here  and  who  speak  the  Spanish  language,  that  we  have 
presented  a  motion  of  a  general  character.  We  hope  that  the  resolu¬ 
tion  will  be  discussed  at  the  time  when  the  draft  standing  orders 
come  up  for  adoption.  For  that  reason  I  will  avoid  any  discussion 
at  present  of  our  motion.  I  wish  merely  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  motion  which  has  just  been  made  by  the  delegation  from 
Ecuador  simply  anticipates  a  motion  of  a  more  general  character, 
of  which  I  have  given  notice. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Greenwood’s  statement  covered  the  printing  and  translation  in  a 
general  way,  as  well  as  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee,  and 
that  while  it  might  be  perfectly  proper  and  advisable  to  discuss 
this  question  at  a  time  when  the  question  comes  up  under  the  stand¬ 
ing  orders,  that  it  leads  to  an  embarrassment  for  the  moment,  when 
you  are  considering  a  vote  of  thanks  to  an  organizing  committee 
that  has  just  made  its  report. 

Viscount  de  EZA  (Spain — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  do  not  want 
to  raise  any  difficulty  at  present.  I  renounce  the  discussion  of  my 
proposal,  and  note  with  satisfaction  the  explanation  which  has  been 
given  by  the  president. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  therefore  be  considered  that  the 
motion  made  by  the  representative  from  Ecuador,  and  seconded  by 
the  representative  from  Spain,  will  be,  for  the  present,  at  least, 
withdrawn. 

The  question  now  occurs  on  the  motion  as  presented  by  Mr. 
Marjoribanks  and  seconded  by  Messrs.  Guerin  and  Jouhaux. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  signify  the  same  by  raising  the 
right  hand.  [Show  of  hands.]  Down.  Those  opposed  by  the  same 
sign.  [Show  of  hands.]  The  motion  is  carried.  [Applause.] 


Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  May 
I  make  one  further  announcement  at  the  present  moment?  The 
fourth  part  of  Monsieur  Fontaine’s  report  is  being  distributed, 
both  in  French  and  in  English,  and  I  suggest  that  the  delegates 
should  not  leave  their  places,  if  they  will  be  so  good,  until  we  have 
completed  that  distribution. 

There  is  just  one  other  point.  The  press  photographers  are  very 
anxious  to  have  a  complete  photograph  of  all  the  delegates  to  the 
conference,  and  they  suggest  that  the  delegates  should  assemble 
on  the  steps  just  outside  the  building  before  the  meeting  to-morrow 
morning  in  order  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  obtaining  a  photo¬ 
graph. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  now  upon  the  provisional 
adoption  of  the  draft  standing  orders  as  presented  for  your  considera¬ 
tion  by  the  committee.  What  is  your  pleasure? 

May  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  resolution  you  have 
just  adopted,  presented  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  provides  that  after 
the  provisional  adoption  of  the  draft  standing  orders,  the  conference 
be  adjourned  until  to-morrow  to  enable  the  report  to  be  circulated. 
Now  the  question  before  you  is  the  question  of  the  provisional 
adoption  ot  the  standing  orders. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  In  order  that  the  motion  by  Mr.  Marjori¬ 
banks,  which  we  seconded,  may  be  an  effective  resolution,  we 
ought  not  to  have  a  meeting  to-morrow  morning.  When  we  receive 
Mr.  Fontaine’s  report,  it  will  be  past  5  o’clock;  we  do  not  intend  to 
work  until  midnight,  consequently  we  should  be  given  to-morrow 
forenoon  at  least  so  that  we  may  examine  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report  at 
some  leisure.  Will  you  tell  me  how  we  shall  have  time  to  do  this 
if  we  have  a  meeting  again  to-morrow  morning,  just  as  if  no  vote  had 
been  taken?  I  understood  that  the  motion  of  our  English  colleague 
would  result  in  our  not  having  a  meeting  to-morrow.  I  move,  there¬ 
fore,  that  it  be  understood  that  no  official  meeting  shall  take  place 
to-morrow  and  that  we  shall  have  time  to  study  and  examine  Mr. 
Fontaine’s  report  at  leisure.  Our  colleagues  representing  the  work¬ 
ingmen  will  study  it  by  themselves  and  those  representing  the  govern¬ 
ments  likewise  by  themselves.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  motion  is 
all  the  more  likely  to  be  accepted,  as  it  would  give  everybody  time 
to  study  the  report.  I  might  even  say  that  we  could,  if  we 
thought  best,  very  properly  adjourn  the  meeting  until  Monday, 
inasmuch  as  on  Saturday  we  shall  have  no  session,  that  day  being 
a  holiday.  That  would  give  us  two  days  which  might  be  well 
employed.  If  I  thought  that  the  assembly  supported  me  to 
some  extent,  I  should  move  to  adjourn  the  meeting  until  Monday. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Is  not  the  question  before  the 
Chair  the  provisional  adoption  of  the  standing  orders  recom¬ 
mended  by  the  committee?  I  understood  that  was  the  question 
submitted  by  the  Chair.  If  so,  I  move  the  provisional  adoption  of 
the  standing  orders. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  think  that  the  question  brought 
up  by  Mr.  Guerin  will  be  answered  when  you  decide  at  what  time 
you  will  hold  your  first  meeting,  which  has  not  yet  been  really 
settled.  You  have  to  decide  the  question  of  postponing  the  discus¬ 
sion  of  my  report  until  after  the  vote  on  the  standing  orders,  so  that 
I  think  we  can  now  discuss  the  provisional  adoption  of  these  standing 
orders;  subsequently  you  will  be  called  upon  to  say  when  you  wish 
to  hold  a  session. 

We  do  not  ask  you  to  confirm  these  standing  orders,  nor  to  say,  as 
I  pointed  out  just  now,  that  they  suit  you  definitively;  you  will  be 
called  upon  later  to  appoint  a  committee  to  examine  them,  and  this 
committee  will  make  all  the  modifications  considered  necessary  in 
these  orders;  but  as  I  told  you  a  few  moments  ago,  we  are  a  numerous 
assembly,  and  the  committee  in  charge  of  examining  the  orders  will 
probably  take  a  few  days  to  do  this  work,  for  it  is  a  serious  question, 
very  diffuse  and  complex,  and  it  can  not  be  examined  in  a  few  houra. 
Until  the  committee  submits  to  you  final  standing  orders  we  must 
have  provisional  regulations,  so  as  to  conduct  discussions  among  40 
nations  or  200  persons.  In  an  assembly  of  6,  8,  or  10  persons  we  can 
do  without  regulations,  and  everything  will  proceed  with  due  cour- 


146865°— 20— -2 


18 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


tesy  and  good  feeling.  But  that  is  not  possible  for  a  large  assembly 
like  ours.  For  that  reason  the  organizing  committee  requests  you 
not  to  confirm  what  it  has  done,  I  repeat,  but  simply  to  be  willing 
to  adopt  the  draft  which  has  been  prepared  until  such  time  as  you 
shall  adopt  a  final  set  of  rules  which  you  will  put  into  effect. 

Viscount  de  EZA  (Spain — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  have  certain 
reservations  to  make  as  to  the  temporary  adoption  of  the  stand¬ 
ing  orders.  May  I  ask  whether  the  present  postponement  of  the 
final  draft  of  the  orders  means  postponing  only  for  a  few  days,  or 
whether  it  means  that  the  standing  orders  will  be  definitely  adopted 
only  at  the  end  of  the  present  conference,  and  then  the  final  version 
will  only  come  into  force  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  conference. 
For  the  Spanish  delegates  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  know 
whether  the  Spanish  language  is  going  to  be  permitted  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  conference?  There  are  very  many  nations  speaking  that  lan¬ 
guage — many  representatives  and  advisers  speaking  Spanish.  I 
draw  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  notices  put  up  in  this  very 
hall  are  in  three  languages — French,  English,  and  Spanish.  Out 
of  courtesy  for  the  present  assembly  and  out  of  sympathy  for  the 
French  and  the  English  languages,  1  am  willing,  in  order  to  avoid 
all  difficulties,  to  renounce  any  definite  proposal,  but  I  would  like 
to  have  a  definite  answer  as  to  whether  the  gentlemen  responsible 
for  the  matter  think  that  the  standing  orders  will  be  adopted  only 
at  the  end  of  this  conference  or  whether  there  is  any  hope  that  in  a 
few  days  Spanish  will  be  admitted  as  one  of  the  official  languages. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Monsieur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  We  have  not  got  to  decide  upon  the 
orders  of  the  day  for  the  conference;  our  part  is  finished  with  my 
report,  which  is  merely  designed  to  secure  the  transition  from  organi¬ 
zation  to  discussion.  The  rules  are  to  be  adopted  in  two,  three,  or 
four  days,  no  more,  and  in  the  meantime  we  are  asking  you  merely 
for  a  provisional  adoption,  not  for  this  session  but  for  the  necessary 
length  of  time  to  be  ready  for  this  discussion,  and  I  will  add  that  the 
discussion  itself  can  not  be  carried  on  without  provisional  rules. 
Consequently  it  is  necessary  to  adopt  them.  I  will  add  that  the 
arrangements  made  by  the  American  Government  assure  for  the  time 
being  at  least  all  the  necessary  facilities  for  those  who  speak  Spanish; 
the  provisional  orders  permit  each  delegate  to  speak  in  his  own 
language  on  condition  that  he  provide  a  French  and  English  trans¬ 
lation  of  his  speech,  consequently  each  Spanish  delegate  may  speak 
in  his  own  language.  And  furthermore,  we  have  been  assured  that 
the  Pan  American  Union  has  made  the  necessary  arrangements 
to  insure  this  translation. 

Second  point:  You  ask  that  the  documents  shall  be  distributed  in 
Spanish.  According  to  the  plan  of  the  conference  it  was  agreed  to 
distribute  them  only  in  French  and  English,  but  arrangements  have 
been  made  by  the  Pan  American  Union  and  by  the  American  Gov¬ 
ernment  so  that  they  may  likewise  be  distributed  in  Spanish,  not  at 
the  expense  of  the  conference — but  that  does  not  matter.  Thus  by 
effective  outside  arrangements  you  have  every  facility  both  for 
expressing  yourselves  and  securing  all  the  documents  in  Spanish. 

I  am  going  to  ask  you  to  be  kind  enough  to  postpone  the  motion 
for  two  or  three  days  until  the  standing  orders  come  up  for  discussion, 
and  I  think  Mr.  de  Eza  will  agree  to  this,  ror  it  was  the  very  motion 
he  was  going  to  make. 

Viscount  de  EZA  (Spain).  It  is  difficult  i<  r  me  to  agree  with  my 
dear  friend  and  teacher,  Mr.  Fontaine.  1  thought  that  the  propo¬ 
sition  would  be  submitted  to  the  committee  to  be  decided  upon 
only  at  the  time  of  the  final  discussion  of  the  orders.  Everything 
that  Mr.  Fontaine  has  said  is  true,  but  with  his  clear  sightedness  and 
keen  intellect  he  ought  to  understand  that  there  is  a  third  question, 
which  is  a  question  of  principle  for  us,  and  that  is  why  I  must  insist 
on  laying  stress  upon  the  importance  of  the  use  of  Spanish.  How¬ 
ever,  I  am  agreed  that  the  discussion  of  this  question  shall  be  post¬ 
poned  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  committee,  when  it  will  be 
brought  up  at  considerable  length. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  think  that  after  the  explanations 
which  have  just  been  given  us  from  various  sides  it  is  understood 


that  we  are  going  to  adopt  provisionally  the  rule*  laid  down  by  the, 
organizing  committee — that  is  to  say,  that  these  rules  will  be  in  effect 
until  the  committee  appointed  for  that  purpose  brings  before  the 
congress  the  modifications  it  considers  necessary  in  the  text  sub¬ 
mitted  to  it.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  resolution  is  to  be  adopted. 
Consequently  there  is  no  confusion  and  it  is  only  provisionally  that 
we  are  going  to  express  ourselves  upon  the  adoption  of  the  text  of 
the  rules.  On  the  other  hand,  to  give  a  practical  conclusion  to  the 
motions  for  adjournment  which  were  made  a  little  while  ago,  I  think 
we  might  decide  to  have  the  conference  meet  at  half  past  3 
to-morrow  afternoon  to  resume  its  work.  This  lapse  of  time  seems 
to  me  sufficient  for  the  study  of  the  text  and  likewise  for  making  the 
necessary  translations. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  I  second  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  I  gather  the  motion  that  has  just  been 
made,  it  is  that  when  we  adjourn,  we  adjourn  to  meet  at  half  past  3 
o’clock  to-morrow  afternoon. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  wish  to 
oppose  this  motion— I  mean  the  last  one.  I  would  oppose  any  motion 
to  adjourn  the  session  to  a  later  day.  We  are  now  occupied  with 
all  sorts  of  preliminary  tasks,  and  if  we  give  a  great  deal  of  time  to 
them — important  as  they  are — I  fear  that  at  the  end  we  shall  lack 
the  time  and  also  the  assistance  of  those  who  may  have  to  leave  at  a 
certain  date,  in  the  discussion  of  the  most  important  questions,  such 
as,  for  example,  question  No.  9,  regarding  the  eight-hour  day.  It 
was  for  that  reason  that  I  should  have  opposed  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Guerin,  of  the  French  delegation,  who  has,  however,  modified  his 
first  proposal.  It  also  seems  to  me  that  we  might  meet  at  an  earlier 
hour  to-morrow.  We  could  study  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report  by  doing  a 
little  night  work,  to  which  most  of  us  are  well  accustomed,  and  thus 
get  a  clear  and  definite  understanding  of  his  report.  I  would  like  to 
ask,  Mr.  President — and  it  is  for  this  purpose  that  I  asked  for  the 
privilege  of  the  floor — that  the  conference  make  every  effort  to  reach 
the  important  questions  as  soon  as  possible,  and  not  take  up  too  tnuch 
time  in  discussions  as  to  what  languages  shall  be  used,  or  various 
questions  about  standing  orders  and  parliamentary  procedure,  ques¬ 
tions  which  may  equally  well  be  settled  any  of  several  ways  and 
which  ordinarily  are  not  of  great  importance.  I  would  suggest  that 
the  committee  will  do  its  utmost  to  come  as  quickly  as  possible  to 
the  vital  questions,  to  those  things  that  are  of  material  and  direc- 
importance.  If  you  will  put  Mr.  Jouhaux's  motion  to  the  vote,  I  shall 
vote  for  it  and  not  propose  the  motion  which  I  had  in  mind — to  begin 
the  day  to-morrow  morning  at  9  o’clock. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Is  the  question  before  the  conference 
the  provisional  adoption  of  the  standing  orders?  Is  that  submitted 
to  the  organizing  committee? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Then,  I  respectfully  submit  that  ques¬ 
tions  regarding  the  hour  of  adjournment  are  irrelevant  to  the  point 
under  immediate  consideration.  We  should  dispose  of  thismotion  first. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  parliamentary  point  made  by  Mr.  Rowell 
is  correct,  and  the  question  before  the  conference  is  the  motion 
made  by  Mr.  Rowell  that  the  standing  orders  be  provisionally 
adopted.  That  is  the  question  before  the  conference,  and  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  adjournment  and  the  time  of  adjournment  can  be  disposed 
of  after  this  question  has  been  passed  upon.  I  would  ask  the  con¬ 
ference  if  they  are  ready  to  vote  on  the  question  of  the  provisional 
adoption  of  the  standing  orders  with  the  explanations  that  have  been 
made  between  the  Spanish  delegation  and  Mr.  Fontaine. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  provisionally  to  adopt  the  standing 
orders  will  signify  the  same  by  raising  the  right  hand.  [Show  of 
hands.]  Those  opposed.  [Carried.] 

And  the  question  now  before  you  is  adjournment,  and  the  time 
to  which  you  will  adjourn.  The  representative  from  Serbia. 

Mr.  GROUITCH  (Serbs  Croats  and  Slovenes).  I  simply  desire  to 
state  that  I  have  abstained  from  voting  on  this  motion,  as  I  have 
never  seen  the  text  of  the  standing  orders,  but,  as  the  resolution  has 
passed,  I  have  no  objection  to  make. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


19 


Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  1  move  you.  Mr.  President,  that  this  con¬ 
ference  do  now  adjourn  to  meet  to-morrow  afternoon  at  2.30  o’clock. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  that  the  meeting  do  now 
adjourn  to  2.30  o’clock  to-morrow  afternoon. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Speaking  for  myself  and  my  colleague, 
Mr.  Jouhaux,  we  will  agree  to  the  motion  to  adjourn  until  half  past 
two  instead  of  half  past  three  to-morrow. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  I  also  agree. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  you  ready  to  vote?  As  many  as  favor 
the  motion  to  adjourn  until  2.30  to-morrow  afternoon  will  raise  their 
right  hands.  [Hands  raised.]  Those  opposed.  The  motion  is 
carried  and  the  conference  is  adjourned  to  2.30  to-morrow  afternoon. 

[Whereupon,  at  5.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Thursday,  October  30,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Lgvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for  Hon. 

Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

Mr.  G.  Munizaga  Varela. 

China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 


Cuba: 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainzy  de  los  Reyes. 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  F.  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czechoslovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  C.  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  J.  Cueva  Garcia.  • 
France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Mr.  I.£on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.F.  G.  Price  (substitute for  Right 
Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 


Great  Britain — Continued. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  K.  C.  B 
Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Soflanopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  F.  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  A.  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  Jameg  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Dr.  M.  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Mr.  U.  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  Van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriguez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  fo.  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 


Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Peru: 

Mr.  V.  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowiez. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos6  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Micliaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 
Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Spain:  ' 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero, 
weden: 

Judge  A.  E.  M.  Sjoborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  H.  von  Koch. 
Senator  H.  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  H.  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Riifenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Mr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 

Dr.  Santos  A.  Dominici. 


THIRD  SESSION— THURSDAY,  OCTOBER  30,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.55  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B. 
Wilson,  Secretary  of  Labor,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  before  the  conference  is  the 
consideration  of  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee.  What  is 
the  pleasure  of  the  conference? 

May  I  ask  what  action  the  conference  desires  to  take  relative 
to  the  report  of  the  committee  on  organization?  The  representative 
from  the  Italian  delegation  is  recognized. 

Mr.  GINO  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian): 

On  the  report  of  Mr.  Fontaine  I  have  only  one  remark  to  make, 
and  that  is  relative  to  the  point  No.  16,  marked  in  this  translation 
of  the  report,  where  it  says: 

It  was  decided  in  the  treaty  with  Austria  not  to  refer  to  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  allied  workers  on  enemy  territory,  and  vice  versa,  and  to  submit  the  proposal  of 
the  labor  section,  June  4,  1919,  to  the  International  Labor  Conference  at  Washing¬ 
ton. 

I  believe  that  I  am  interpreting  the  thoughts  of  many  of  the 
delegates  here  present,  and  certainly  of  the  labor  delegates,  when  I 
say  that  it  is  desirable  to  establish  the  principle  of  reciprocity  in 
the  relations  of  labor  in  the  several  countries.  This  principle  of 
establishing  reciprocity  is  all  the  more  important  -when  we  remember 
that  this  is  an  international  labor  conference.  Unless  this  principle 
is  established  at  the  start,  with  the  laborers  of  the  different  coun¬ 
tries  adhering  to  this  principel  of  enjoying  reciprocity  of  rights  in 
the  several  countries,  the  delegates  from  Italy  believe  that  there 
would  be  little  value  in  the  decisions  and  work  which  this  con¬ 
ference  mar  perform. 


In  the  labor  charter  attached  to  the  peace  treaty  mention  is  made 
of  reciprocity  of  rights,  but  no  provision  is  made  for  their  enforce¬ 
ment.  This  question  of  reciprocity  of  rights  was  referred  to  this 
international  conference,  and  it  is  the  work  of  this  international 
conference  to  affirm  this  principle. 

I  therefore  move  an  amendment  to  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report;  that  is 
to  say,  I  propose  that  the  motion  made  on  point  16  should  be  omit¬ 
ted  and  that  instead  it  should  be  decided  as  follows:  The  conference 
requests  its  president  to  appoint  a  committee  of  seven  delegates  to 
study  and  to  report  back  to  the  conference  on  the  resolution  of  the 
Supreme  Council  of  August  29,  1919.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that 
this  fundamental  point,  which  I  consider  a  preliminary  question 
to  the  further  points  which  will  come  before  the  conference,  will 
be  received  with  favor  by  the  delegates  here  assembled. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  made  by  the  delegate  from 
Italy  is  that  the  conference  invite  its  president  to  appoint  a 
commission  of  seven  members  for  the  purpose  of  studying  and  re¬ 
porting  on  the  resolution  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  August  29, 1919. 
The  Chair  is  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  this  motion  would  not 
be  in  order  at  this  time,  as  the  question  before  the  house  is  the 
adoption  of  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee.  If  the  organizing 
committee’s  report  is  adopted,  then  at  the  proper  time  this  resolution 
would  be  in  order. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian): 

Mr.  President,  I  submit  that  my  point  is  in  order,  because  this 
meeting  is  discussing  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report,  and  the  motion  I  am 
offering  is  an  amendment  to  point  16  in  Mr.  Fontaine]s  report, 


20 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


in  which  Mr.  Fontaine  proposes  that  that  opinion  of  the  Supreme 
Council  of  August  29,  1919,  be  held  back  for  discussion  at  a  future 
conference.  Instead,  I  offer  an  amendment  asking  that  it  be  dis¬ 
cussed  at  the  present  conference.  I  therefore  think  that  my  point 
is  well  taken,  because  it  is  in  the  nature  of  an  amendment  to  the 
Fontaine  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Fontaine,  you  are  recognized. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  made  no  definite  proposal  in  regard 
to  this  point  in  my  report.  I  stated  the  matter  in  treating  it  as 
I  saw  it,  but  my  view  binds  no  one.  Mr.  Baldesi’s  remarks  indi¬ 
cate  that  he  does  not  agree  with  me  on  this  point,  but  the  matter 
is  entirely  a  personal  opinion  and  not  a  definite  proposal.  I  have  no 
objections  to  make  to  the  substance  of  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment,  but 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  question  is  not  before  us,  since  I  did  not 
propose  any  definite  motion.  The  first  question  to  come  up  for  dis¬ 
cussion  is  that  of  the  admission  of  the  Germans;  later  I  think  Mr. 
Baldesi  will  have  plenty  of  opportunity  to  present  his  motion, 
because,  though  it  is  contrary  to  my  personal  opinion,  it  is  not 
contrary  to  any  proposal  which  has  been  brought  before  the  meeting. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian): 

May  I  ask  whether  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report  is  up  for  the  approval  of 
this  assembly  or  not.  If  it  is  asked  that  a  vote  be  taken  on  the 
approval  of  that  report,  then  it  is  clear  that  the  approval  of  that 
report  implies  the  approval  of  the  proposal  in  point  16 — that  the 
question  he  brought  up  should  be  referred  to  a  future  conference.  If 
the  report  is  not  brought  up  for  approval  and  if  a  vote  is  not  to  be 
taken  on  it  I  withdraw  my  motion.  If  that  report  is  to  be  approved 
then  I  consider  that  my  motion  is  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Rowell. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  submit  that  a  reading 
of  the  report  fully  bears  out  the  statement  of  the  chairman  that  the 
adoption  of  the  report  will  not  in  any  way  preclude  the  full  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  question  raised  by  the  delegate  from  Italy.  The 
report  reads: 

It  also  appears  advisable  to  consider  the  following  passage  contained  in  a  resolution 
of  August  29,  1919 - 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr,  Rowell,  what  page,  please? 

Mr.  ROWELL.  On  page  14,  under  item  16.  If  the  members  will 
just  look  at  their  printed  copies  of  the  report,  it  reads  as  follows: 

It  also  appears  advisable  to  consider  the  following  passage  contained  in  a  resolution 
August  29,  1919,  of  the  Supreme  Allied  Council:  It  was  decided  in  the  treaty  with 
Austria  not  to  refer  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  allied  workers  on  enemy  territory, 
and  vice  versa,  and  to  submit  the  proposal  of  the  labor  section  June  4,  1919,  to  the 
International  Labor  Conference  at  Washington. 

If  I  understand  the  report,  the  object  of  the  report  is  to  bring  this 
matter  to  the  attention  of  the  conference  and  to  suggest  that  the 
conference  should  give  it  consideration.  Therefore,  Mr.  President, 
I  submit  the  proper  course  would  be  to  do  just  as  you  have  suggested, 
to  proceed  with  the  approval  of  this  report;  and  then  the  question 
raised  by  the  delegate  from  Italy  is  a  proper  matter  to  be  brought 
before  the  conference  for  consideration  as  the  report  recommends 
that  it  should  be  brought. 

Mr.  SOKAL  (Poland).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  the 
importance  of  the  remarks  made  by  the  delegate  from  Italy  is  clearly 
evident.  The  Polish  delegation  heartily  seconds  the  motion  of  the 
Italian  delegation. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  I  think  that  one  can  hardly  pro¬ 
pose  an  amendment  to  a  report  in  which  the  author  of  the  report 
merely  states  his  personal  opinion.  I  think  that  if  the  Italian  dele¬ 
gates  wish  to  bring  before  us  their  present  motion,  they  will  have 
opportunity  to  do  so  in  a  different  way  later ;  and  then  we  shall  be 
able  to  comply  with  article  13  of  the  draft  standing  orders  of  this 
conference  which  read?  as  follows: 

All  amendments  or  motions  must  be  handed  in  to  the  secretariat  of  the  conference. 
They  will  be  printed  for  the  sitting  on  the  day  following  that  on  which  they  have 
been  handed  in. 

I  think  that  if  the  Italian  members  were  to  follow  this  course 
they  would  conform  more  exactly  to  the  standing  orders  of  our  con¬ 


ference.  Let  them  therefore  withdraw  their  motion  for  the  present, 
and  take  a  later  occasion  to  present  it  to  the  conference,  so  that  now 
we  can  finish  the  program  laid  out  for  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France)  I  am  entirely  in  agreement  with  our 
colleague  of  the  Italian  delegation.  But  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report 
merely  sets  forth  the  personal  opinion  of  Mr.  Fontaine  and  can  not 
bind  the  conference.  The  question  therefore  remains  entirely  in 
the  hands  of  the  conference.  For  the  present  not  even  the  question 
of  deciding  whether  the  Italian  proposal  shall  be  referred  to  a  later 
session  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  can  come  before  us. 
This  amendment  will  have  to  be  discussed  and  decided  upon  at  a 
later  session  of  the  conference. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  think  that  after  the  motion  has  been 
seconded,  according  to  article  13,  the  only  thing  to  do  is  to  let  the 
thing  remain  until  the  next  meeting.  The  motion  is  already  before 
the  conference.  It  has  been  seconded  by  somebody  else;  two  par¬ 
ties  have  seconded  it  and  I  do  not  think  it  is  the  time  to  discuss  it, 
but  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  next  meeting  according  to  article  13: 

All  amendments  or  motions  must  be  handed  in  to  the  secretariat  of  the  con¬ 
ference.  They  will  be  printed  for  the  sitting  on  the  day  following  that  on  which 
they  have  been  handed  in. 

Therefore,  I  don’t  think  we  can  discuss  the  motion  now.  It  must 
be  just  left  for  the  secretariat  of  the  conference  and  attended  to 
to-morrow  and  then  we  can  continue  the  discussion  of  the  rest  of  the 
matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  still  of  the  opinion  that,  aside 
from  article  13,  but  also  by  virtue  of  article  13,  the  motion  is 
not  in  order  at  this  time.  The  purpose  of  a  parliamentary  organi¬ 
zation  is  to  secure  the  orderly  consideration  of  the  questions  that 
come  before  the  body.  If  this  motion  to  amend  can  be  accepted 
at  this  time,  then,  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  the  report  deals  with 
the  suggestions  of  the  various  matters  that  may  come  before  the 
body,  instead  of  dealing  with  them  in  an  orderly  manner  they  would 
be  dealt  with  by  the  process  of  amendments  offered  to  the  organizing 
committee’s  report.  Clearly,  that  would  not  be  an  orderly  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  various  subject  matters  the  conference  is  required 
to  pass  upon.  The  organizing  committee  suggests  that  the  item 
referred  to  ought  to  be  considered  by  this  conference.  If  this  report 
is  adopted,  then  in  due  time  and  in  accordance  with  the  arrange¬ 
ments  that  may  be  made  in  a  parliamentary  way,  the  question 
would  come  up  for  consideration — come  up  in  an  orderly  manner. 
I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  amendment  is  not  in  order  at 
this  time.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian): 

After  the  ruling  of  the  Chair  and  the  remarks  made  by  the  dele¬ 
gate  from  France  and  the  delegate  from  Poland  I  withdraw  my 
motion,  but  will  present  it  on  a  future  occasion. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Is  a  motion  necessary  on  an  order 
to  adopt  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Such  a  motion  will  be  in  order. 

Mr.  DRAPER.  If  so,  I  move  to  concur  on  behalf  of  the  Canadian 
delegation. 

Mr.  STUART-BUNNING  (Great  Britain).  Seconded. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  and  seconded  that  the 
report  of  the  organizing  committee  be  adopted. 

You  have  heard  the  motion.  There  is  no  further  debate.  As 
many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  organizing  commit¬ 
tee  will  raise  their  right  hands.  [Show  of  hands.  ]  Down.  Those 
opposed,  raise  their  right  hands.  [Show  of  hands.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to  and  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee 
is  adopted. 

The  next  order  of  business  on  the  provisional  program  is  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  admission  of  Austria  and  Germany  to  the  International 
Labor  Conference.  Mr.  Fontaine  will  offer  a  motion  and  will  be 
recognized  shortly  for  that  purpose.  Copies  of  it  are  being  dis¬ 
tributed  to  you  now. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Gentlemen,  my  r61e  here  is  to  lay 
the  documents  before  you.  Yesterday  I  stopped  the  reading  of 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


21 


my  report  before  the  point  where  I  should  have  had  to  read  the 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Council  and  all  the  texts  which  deal 
with  the  admission  of  the  Germans,  Austrians,  and  other  nations  to 
the  International  Conference  in  the  International  Labor  Organiza¬ 
tion.  I  stopped  at  that  point  because  I  believed  that  the  read¬ 
ing  of  these  texts,  without  your  having  them  before  you,  was 
entirely  useless,  and  that  it  was  necessary  and  indispensable 
for  you  to  have  them  to  consult  and  read  over  at  leisure.  Now  that 
you  have  had  them  in  hand  and  have  read  them,  it  still  seems  to  me 
unnecessary  to  take  up  your  time  by  reading  them  over  to  you  pub¬ 
licly:  so  I  ask  you  to  consider  these  texts  as  read,  since  you  have 
them  before  you.  I  merely  wish  to  point  out  that  in  the  type¬ 
written  copy  which  was  distributed  at  the  end  of  yesterday’s  session, 
and  which  I  had  not  read  over,  there  was  omitted  by  mistake  of  the 
typist  one  of  the  principal  texts,  the  resolution  passed  September  11, 
1919,  by  the  Supreme  Council;  but  fortunately  the  editor  of  the 
minutes  supplied  this  omission,  and  the  text  of  September  11,  1919, 
is  given  in  the  printed  copy  which  has  been  distributed  to  you  this 
morning. 

I  will  take  occasion  to  make  a  second  remark,  namely,  that  when 
I  wrote  this  report  I  had  all  the  texts  in  my  possession.  I  left  France 
on  October  11.  Now,  on  October  11  the  Supreme  Council  formally 
approved  a  letter  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Polk,  of  the  American  delegation, 
and  directed  to  Mr.  de  Lersner,  the  German  plenipotentiary.  I  could 
not  include  this  text,  because  I  did  not  have  it  at  the  time;  but  in 
any  case  it  contains  nothing  new  to  us  and  merely  confirms  the 
others.  I  received  it  yesterday,  and  I  will  now  take  the  liberty  of 
reading  it  to  you. 

The  Supreme  Council  directs  me  to  answer  your  letter  of  October  4  in  regard  to  the 
membership  of  the  labor  conference  which  will  shortly  meet  in  Washington  at  the 
invitation  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  Owing  to  the  urgency  and 
importance  of  the  questions  to  be  submitted  to  this  conference  the  Supreme  Council 
believes  that  the  States  mentioned  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations  who  are  either  signatories  to  the  treaty  of  peace,  or  neutral  States,  should 
have  the  privilege  of  participating  in  the  first  meeting  of  the  conference,  from  the 
outset,  even  though  the  League  of  Nations  has  not  yet  actually  come  into  being.  At  the 
request  of  the  council  I  am  communicating  this  interpretation  to  my  own  Govern¬ 
ment  for  its  information. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  in  this  first  part  of  his  letter  Mr.  Polk 
is  ODly  expressing  the  opinion  of  the  council  concerning  the  45 
powers  enumerated  in  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and 
states  that  he  is  communicating  this  to  his  own  Government.  This 
adds  absolutely  nothing  new. 

The  second  part  of  the  letter,  the  concluding  passage,  seems  to  be 
of  equal  importance.  Nevertheless,  it  contains  nothing  new,  and  is 
simply  confirmatory: 

At  the  same  time  the  council  recommends  to  the  organizing  committee  of  the  labor 
conference,  which  has  the  power  to  act  in  the  premises,  that  the  question  of  admitting 
the  German  and  Austrian  delegates  to  full  participation  in  the  work  of  the  conference 
shall  be  considered  by  the  conference  as  the  first  item  on  its  program. 

We  did  not  have  this  letter  from  Mr.  Polk  before  us  when  we  drew 
up  the  program,  but  we  had  already  interpreted  the  preceding 
documents  in  that  sense,  and  that  is  why  we  had  proposed  the  im¬ 
mediate  discussion  of  this  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  suggest  that  it  would  facilitate  an 
understanding  of  the  discussion  if  the  periods  are  made  shorter  and 
the  translation  made  as  we  proceed,  in  shorter  periods  than  we  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  making  them. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Also  on  the  13th  of  October  a  letter 
was  received  regarding  Luxemburg,  which  is  to  the  same  effect  as 
the  one  regarding  Finland;  that  is,  the  Supreme  Council  refers  to  us 
the  question  of  Luxemburg  in  the  same  terms  as  it  referred  the 
question  of  Finland. 

The  proposed  resolution  which  has  been  distributed  to  you  was 
drawn  up  by  the  organizing  committee  as  representing  the  whole 
body  of  the  decisions  which  had  been  made  by  the  Supreme  Council 
and  officially  communicated  to  that  committee. 

We  propose  to  consider  the  question  of  Germany  and  Austria 
first,  and  then  we  shall  take  up  the  question  of  the  other  nations. 


[Mr.  Fontaine  reads  in  French  the  resolution  in  question.] 

In  drafting  this  resolution  the  international  organization  com¬ 
mittee  believes  it  has  faithfully  interpreted  the  documents  which 
were  laid  before  it. 

The  CLERK  OF  THE  CONFERENCE.  This  is  the  English 
translation  of  the  draft  resolution.  You  have  the  paper  before  you. 

DRAFT  RESOLUTION  CONCERNING  THE  ADMISSION  OF  GERMANY  AND  AUSTRU.  TO  THE 
INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  ORGANIZATION. 

Whereas,  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations  concerning  the  treaty  of  peace,  the  Allied 
and  Associated  Powers  agreed  with  Germany  and  Austria  to  accept  the  idea  of  their 
early  admission  to  the  International  Labor  Organization  and  decided  to  leave  the  ques¬ 
tion  to  the  Washington  conference  for  its  decision  with  a  recommendation  in  favor  of 
their  admission  after  the  conclusion  of  the  conference,  and 

Whereas,  at  a  later  date  theAllied  and  Associated  Powers  referred  the  question  of  the 
immediate  admission  of  Germany  and  Austria  to  the  labor  conference  at  Washington, 
to  the  decision  of  the  conference  itself: 

Therefore,  the  International  Labor  Conference,  acting  in  accordance  with  the  de- 
ci  sions  of  the  Allied  and  Associate  Powers, 

Resolves,  That  in  anticipation  of  their  admission  to  the  League  of  Nations  and  in  view 
of  their  expressed  willingness  to  cooperate  in  the  work  of  the  labor  organization 
Germany  and  Austria  are  hereby  admitted  to  membership  in  the  International  Labor 
Organization  with  the  same  rights  and  obligations  possessed  by  the  other  members 
of  the  labor  organization,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  treaties  of  peace  signed  at  Ver¬ 
sailles  on  the  28th  day  of  June,  1919,  and  at  St.  Germain  on  the  10th  day  of  September, 
1919. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Nolens. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President,  it  seems  to  me 
that  this  is  a  question  which  it  is  better  to  touch  on  lightly  rather 
than  to  emphasize.  For  my  part,  I  should  like  to  move  that  the 
conference  accept  this  resolution  on  the  ground  that  it  is  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  decisions  of  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers.  That  is 
sufficient  reason  for  me  to  accept  it,  because  I  can  thereby  show  my 
confidence  in  the  decisions  of  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers. 
[Applause.] 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France.)  Gentlemen,  in  the  name  of  the  French 
employers’  delegation,  I  have  a  delicate  and  rather  painful  duty  to 
perform,  one  which  is  however  imperative  and  necessary,  namely, 
to  explain  to  you  simply  and  frankly  our  views  on  this  point. 

I  have  not  the  slightest  intention  of  inflaming  the  debate.  My 
home  in  France — permit  me  this  detail — is  in  the  region  which  the 
enemy  occupied  for  four  years  and  a  half.  Thus,  I  might,  without 
undue  stress,  depict  for  you  the  sufferings  which  we  have  endured. 
I  will  forbear.  Incidentally,  I  may  say  that  I  occupied  the  unique 
position  of  being  the. director  in  the  invaded  Provinces  of  France  of 
the  distribution  of  the  supplies  which  we  owed  to  American  gener¬ 
osity,  and  I  take  pleasure  at  this  moment  in  acknowledging  and  giv¬ 
ing  thanks  for  this  generosity  once  more.  [Applause.]  In  this 
position  I  was  in  constant  touch  with  the  German  authorities.  I 
even  hold  the  unique  position,  for  a  Frenchman,  of  having  been  at 
Berlin  five  times  during  the  war.  I  must  say  that  I  was  always  re¬ 
ceived  and  treated  with  the  most  perfect  courtesy.  I  had  difficulties 
with  German  general  headquarters,  because  in  such  cases  one  always 
does  have  difficulties  with  the  military  authorities  in  any  country,  but 
the  civil  authorities  in  Berlin  showed  me  extreme  consideration  and 
in  order  to  be  fair  I  am  desirous  of  recognizing  this. 

This  being  granted,  I  should  agree  with  Dr.  Nolens  that  if  the 
question  were  presented  to  us  as  it  has  just  been  stated,  then,  out  of 
deference  to  the  opinion  of  the  Council  of  the  Allied  and  Associated 
Powers,  we  should  only  have  to  give  way  and  adopt  the  conclusions 
of  the  Supreme  Council.  My  colleagues  and  I  left  Paris  in  that 
confidence,  and  reached  here  with  the  intention  of  not  opposing 
on  principle  the  admission  of  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates. 
We  do  not  have  to  retract  this  acceptance  of  fact  and  principle.  We 
have  in  fact  decided  to  yield  to  this  decision  to  admit  the  Germans. 
Very  well.  The  first  point  is  now  disposed  of,  and  after  all  that  is 
the  most  serious  one.  But  just  as  there  are  30  days  in  a  month,  so 
the  conference  will  not  end  on  the  day  after  its  opening.  Two  or 
three  weeks  may  elapse;  we  do  not  know  how  long  it  will  last.  We 
left  Paris  after  the  declaration  that  the  representatives  of  the  enemy 
powers  would  not  be  admitted  until  the  end  of  the  conference.  I 


22 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


ought  to  say  that  I  took  the  precaution,  so  far  as  it  concerned  me, 
of  going  to  see  Mr.  Leon  Bourgeois,  who  is  in  our  country  the  ac¬ 
credited  representative  of  the  League  of  Nations,  since  it  was  he,  I 
believe,  who  originally  conceived  the  idea  of  the  league. 

So,  then,  I  had  taken  the  precaution  before  leaving  Paris  to  consult 
Mr.  Leon  Bourgeois,  who  had  just  reported  to  the  French  Senate  the 
conclusions  tending  to  the  ratification  of  the  peace  treaty.  Mr. 
L6on  Bourgeois  handed  me  this  official  report  (indicating  report] 
which  is  the  official  document  laid  before  the  French  Senate.  This 
report  was  presented  on  the  3d  of  October.  I  emphasize  the  date 
because  dates  have  importance  here.  In  it  there  is  this  statement, 
which  I  request  permission  to  lay  before  you  in  detail.  The  French 
Senate  evidently  found  itself  in  the  same  embarrassment  that  we 
might  be  in  ourselves.  The  Senate  said  to  itself:  “Here  is  a  deli¬ 
cate  question.  Some  will  be  for  it,  others  against  it.  ”  Perhaps  it 
was  definitely  foreseen  that  the  question  would  be  brought  before 
the  international  conference.  “Let  us  take  precautions,”  said 
these  “conscript  fathers”  to  themselves,  and  the  reporter  took  the 
precaution  to  consult  the  Supreme  Council,  putting  the  questions  in 
writing.  To  these  written  questions,  written  reply  was  made  in 
the  same  way.  I  am  going  to  read  only  a  few  lines:  it  will  not  take 
long. 

Here  is  the  first  question:  “Did  not  the  Peace  Conference  decide 
that  at  the  conclusion” — at  the  conclusion,  that  is,  at  the  end — “of 
the  conference  at  Washington,  Germany  should  be  admitted,  firstly, 
into  the  International  Labor  Bureau,  secondly,  into  the  adminis¬ 
trative  council  of  that  bureau?” 

Here  is  the  reply:  “The  labor  committee  of  the  Peace  Confer¬ 
ence,  organized  by  the  decision  of  *  *  *  ” — this  is  of  no  interest — 
*  *  *  “  was  consulted  on  the  15th  of  May  by  the  Supreme  Council 
as  to  whether  it  was  best  to  admit  Germany  at  an  early  date  into  the 
International  Labor  Organization.  The  labor  committee  replied 
that  it  was  of  the  opinion  that  Germany  should  be  admitted  to  the 
International  Labor  Organization  immediately  after  the  confer¬ 
ence  at  Washington.”  Very  well.  The  document  to  which  this 
reply  alludes  was  dated  May  15,  and  you  will  say  to  me  with  good 
reason,  “Why,  enough  weeks  have  passed  from  the  15th  of  May  to 
to-day  to  make  new  documents  requisite.” 

Here,  gentlemen,  is  the  status  of  the  question:  We  left  Paris 
October  18  without  the  passage  which  I  have  laid  before  you  having 
been  in  any  respect  made  less  valid  by  any  information  whatsoever. 
I  saw  Mr.  L6on  Bourgeois  the  15th  or  the  16th  I  think,  and  he  said 
to  me:  “You  have  the  reply  to  the  question  in  the  report  which  I 
laid  before  the  Senate  on  the  3d  of  October,  and  nothing  has  occurred 
to  change  it  since  then.  ”  We  reached  here,  some  documents  were 
given  us  yesterday,  and  I  must  say  that  the  reading  of  these  supple¬ 
mentary  documents — although  they  were  previous  to  October  3 — was 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  throw  our  minds  into  some  confusion.  How¬ 
ever,  upon  analyzing  them  closely,  as  jurists,  if  you  will  permit  the 
word,  nothing  appeared  to  contradict  the  statement  which  is  here, 
inasmuch  as  in  the  replies  of  the  Supreme  Council  it  is  always  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  conditions  laid  down  previously  as  well  as  of  the  condi¬ 
tions  which  have  been  fixed. 

By  one  of  those  unfortunate  occurrences  such  as  happen  only  in 
such  cases,  a  typist’s  error,  to  which  Mr.  Fontaine  has  just  referred, 
suppressed  as  if  by  chance  a  passage  of  the  greatest  importance, 
inasmuch  as  this  passage  set  forth  that  the  decision  was  left  for  final 
settlement  to  the  present  conference. 

I  am  not  willing  to  believe  that  the  Supreme  Council,  being  em¬ 
barrassed  over  the  settlement  of  the  question,  preferred  to  throw  the 
burden  upon  somebody  else’s  shoulders  rather  than  take  it  upon  its 
own.  If  you  think  perhaps  that  I  lack  charity,  then  1  will  suppress 
this  alhision.  However  that  may  be,  it  was  not  until  this  morning — 
you  understand  clearly,  this  morning — when  this  decision  was 
brought  us — you  all  received  it  this  morning — which  gives  the  de¬ 
tails  of  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report  and  makes  known  the  whole  corre¬ 
spondence  exchanged  on  this  point,  that  I  read  this  line:  “It  is  de¬ 
cided  that  this  question  shall  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  congress,  ” 


dated  the  11th  of  September — notice  the  date  again,  gentlemen, 
it  is  important. 

How  does  the  question  present  itself?  I  find  myself  in  this 
dilemma:  Either,  through  an  omission,  through  one  of  those  errors 
which  sometimes  occur  in  the  administration  in  our  country — I  will 
not  make  charges  against  that  of  other  countries — this  correspondence 
was  not  communicated  to  the  Senate  reporter — first  supposition — or 
else  these  documents  were  communicated  to  the  Senate  reporter, 
and  as  he  perhaps  received  them  after  making  the  first  draft  of  his 
report,  he  may  have  forgotten  to  read  them  and  did  not  take  account 
of  them.  I  do  not  know  upon  whose  shoulders  I  must  lay  the  blame, 
but  there  is  no  doubt  that  a  mistake  has  been  made  by  somebody. 
Either  the  documents  were  not  delivered,  or  else,  having  been 
delivered,  no  attention  was  paid  to  them. 

For  my  part,  the  result  is  the  same — and  when  I  speak  of  myself 
I  am  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  entire  employers’  delegation — we 
left  Paris  with  the  assurance  that  on  coming  here  we  should  find 
ourselves  in  the  presence  of  this  declaration,  that  the  Germans 
should  be  admitted  at  the  end  of  the  congress.  In  all  honesty, 
rightly  or  wrongly,  that  is  the  declaration  upon  which  we  left. 

I  understand,  ladies  and  gentlemen;  do  not  be  disturbed,  1  shall 
soon  be  through. 

I  was  at  the  point  in  my  argument  where  I  was  stating  that  we  all 
came  here  to  the  conference  thinking  that  we  were  going  to  find  the 
definite  proposal  to  admit  the  Germans  at  the  conclusion  of  our  de¬ 
liberations;  and  I  repeat,  it  was  fully  our  intention  to  yield  to  the 
proposal  in  this  form. 

I  might  stop  my  argument  here,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  and  say 
to  you:  “Under  these  circumstances  we  refuse  to  yield  any  further” 
and  add  nothing  more.  But  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  be  fair  enough, 
and,  if  one  may  in  case  of  necessity  use  the  word,  to  be  courageous 
enough  to  give  you  my  opinion  free  from  the  verbosity  and  the 
involutions  of  parliamentary  proceedings  and  of  documents  more 
or  less  interpolated,  confused,  and  mixed  up.  I  was  all  the  more 
prepared  to  accept  the  text  of  the  conference  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Bourgeois,  since  I  found  that  it  practically  corresponded  to  a  neces¬ 
sity  whose  importance  can  not  be  misunderstood  by  anybody. 

In  the  first  place,  I  state  my  belief  clearly  that  a  state  of  peace 
should  no  longer  be  a  state  of  war;  we  must  draw  a  distinction  be¬ 
tween  war  and  peace.  I  state,  furthermore,  that  to  try  to  find  a 
solution  of  this  matter  by  cutting  nations  of  100,000,000  or  more  than 
100,000,000  men  out  of  industrial  life  and  out  of  all  relations  between 
one  people  and  another  is  an  artless  illusion.  So  I  think  that  it 
was  really  necessary  to  adopt  measures  which  would  bring  us  into 
relations  with  the  Central  Empires,  and  anyway  it  affects  our  inter¬ 
ests  as  well.  That  is  to  say,  if  we  adopt  measures  of  a  certain  nature 
which  result  in  confining  production  to  certain  limits,  it  would  be 
bad  warfare  to  leave  competitors  right  beside  us  who  would  have 
complete  freedom  and  would  not  fail  to  make  use  of  it.  Well,  all 
this  being  said,  there  remains  none  the  less  one  fact,  namely,  that — 
and  if  I  am  not  of  your  opinion,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  give  me  at 
least  the  liberty  to  express  myself  with  my  usual  frankness — if  as 
a  matter  of  fact  and  from  the  point  of  view  of  our  economic  interests 
this  competition  were  to  come  upon  us,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  fact  that  economic  interests  are  not  everything  in  life;  that 
money  does  not  meet  all  the  aspirations  of  the  human  soul;  and 
that  it  is  not  manifesting  any  very  combative  and  chauvinistic  spirit 
to  try  to  establish  a  line  of  demarcation  between  the  barbarous  peo  • 
pies  from  whom  we  have  had  to  suffer  and  ourselves;  not  to  accept 
them  at  once  as  if  we  were  all  equals  and  on  the  same  level. 

And  I  will  explain  myself:  Who  or  what  is  it  that  we  find  our¬ 
selves  face  to  face  with?  We  do  not  even  know  anything  about  it  as 
yet.  But  let  us  see,  ladies  and  gentlemen.  We  are  on  the  soil  of  a 
Nation  which  at  the  present  time  is  in  a  state  of  war  with  the  Central 
Powers.  She  has  not  signed  the  peace;  the  Peace  Treaty  is  not 
ratified;  it  has  no  executory  power,  and  society  is  still  in  a  state  of 
uncertainty  regarding  a  lot  of  details,  since  fighting  is  still  going  on 
upon  certain  frontiers.  All  this  allows  us  certain  reservations  on 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


23 


the  subject  of  receiving  among  us  on  a  footing  of  equality,  to  discuss 
with  us,  people  who  are  in  the  situation  which  has  just  been  de¬ 
scribed.  From  whom  do  they  get  their  powers,  and  how  will  they 
justify  their  presence?  They  have  nothing  of  all  that. 

I  do  not  want  to  employ  any  melodramatic  phrases,  with  which  it 
would  be  very  easy  to  end  this  argument;  but  I  have  just  told  you 
that  justly,  logically,  and  consistently  with  national  dignity,  if  you 
will  allow  me  the  word,  it  would  have  been  wise  to  establish,  with¬ 
out  meaning  to  offend  anybody — for  I  do  not  believe  that  we  ought 
to  receive  the  Germans  with  the  imposition  of  humiliating  measures, 
and  that  would  be  receiving  them  and  at  the  same  time  repelling 
them;  giving  and  withholding  at  the  same  time  do  not  go,  as  the 
French  lawyers  say — but  all  the  same  it  would  have  been  well  to 
make  this  people  of  the  “scrap  of  paper  ”  understand  that  treaties  do 
still  count  for  something  in  the  life  of  peoples  and  that  we  must 
really  establish  a  line  of  demarcation  between  those  who  have 
violated  them,  who  have  violated  Belgium,  who  have  stamped  tins 
war  with  characteristics  of  unprecedented  barbarity,  and  ourselves, 
who  have  after  all  fought  only  in  defense  of  right  and  liberty. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  re¬ 
gret  that  in  the  name  of  the  workers’  delegates,  acting  unani¬ 
mously,  I  am  obliged  to  present  an  opinion  which  is  on  one  point 
totally  opposed  to  the  one  which  has  been  given  here  by  our  employer 
colleague,  Mr.  Guerin. 

Mr.  Guerin  has  stated  that,  having  left  France  with  the  idea 
that  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates  should  not  be  admitted 
to  the  International  Labor  Organization  until  after  the  conference 
in  Washington,  he  was  greatly  surprised  to-day  to  have  the  question 
brought  up  as  to  whether  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates  should 
be  admitted  immediately  upon  the  opening  of  the  conference. 

I  do  not  think  that  any  delegate  here  can  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  the  idea  which  I  shall  now  present  is  in  any  way  opposed, 
so  far  as  the  interests  of  our  country  and  its  national  dignity  are 
concerned,  to  that  which  has  been  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Gudrin. 
We  are  just  as  solicitous  as  Mr.  Guerin  for  the  dignity  of  our  country, 
but  we  think  that  there  are  questions  of  fact  as  well  as.  of  dignity, 
which  Mr.  Guerin  himself  should  not  have  overlooked,  and  that  these 
facts  will  upon  examination  lead  us  to  hold  at  present  a  different 
opinion  from  the  one  which  has  been  expressed  by  Mr.  Guerin.  It  is 
in  this  spirit  and  on  this  foundation  of  facts  and  aside  from  all  senti¬ 
mentality  that  I  wish  to  examine  this  question  and  arrive  at  some 
practical  conclusion  which  will  express  the  common  thought  of  us 
all,  including  Mr.  Guerin  himself. 

First  of  all  1  invite  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  only  neces¬ 
sary  to  read  the  texts  cited  in  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report  to  understand 
the  development  of  thought  upon  this  question  in  the  Supreme 
Peace  Council  itself.  I  do  not  wish  to  base  my  position  upon  the 
statements  of  French  politicians.  If  there  were  statements  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate,  Mr.  Guerin  knows  as  well  as  I  do  that  there 
were  also  statements  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  which  were  much 
more  definite  and  explicit,  and  that  there  were  likewise  statements 
in  the  newspapers  which  have  never  been  disputed  either  by  any 
member  of  the  Supreme  Peace  Council  or  by  the  Government  itself. 

In  making  this  explanation  I  simply  wish  to  point  out  to  the 
delegates  here  present  that  the  question  is  not  the  same  as  it  was 
last  May  when  it  was  decided  to  admit  German  and  Austrian  dele¬ 
gates  to  the  Washington  conference. 

I  also  wish  to  remind  you  of  the  debates  held  in  the  very  midst 
of  the  Paris  Peace  Conference  on  international  labor  legislation,  as 
the  question  was  brought  up  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  discus¬ 
sions  of  the  international  labor  convention.  This  is  not  the  first 
time  that  the  question  has  come  up  before  the  Supreme  Peace  Coun¬ 
cil  and  the  public.  It  first  arose  when  we  were  considering  plans 
for  an  international  labor  organization,  consequently  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  Peace  Conference  or  at  least  in  an  official  committee 
of  the  Peace  Conference.  I  wish  to  remind  you  that  there  is  a 
proposed  program  appended  to  the  reports  of  the  Peace  Conference 
which  asserts,  in  spirit  if  not  in  so  many  words  (I  have  not  memorized 
the  exact  terms),  that  international  labor  legislation  would  be  of 


no  avail  unless  all  the  other  nations  took  part  in  it.  This  proposed 
program,  Mr.  Guerin,  was  adopted  unanimously  by  the  delegates  at 
the  official  Peace  Conference  at  Paris.  It  contained  the  resolution 
just  presented  by  the  organizing  committee  and  states  explicitly  that 
while  circumstances  had  prevented  Germany  and  Austria  from  being 
present  at  the  beginning  of  the  discussion  of  the  International  Labor 
Organization,  it  was  nevertheless  certain  that  when  this  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Organization  began  to  consider  economic  questions 
proper,  it  would  no  longer  be  possible  to  debar  Germany  and  Austria. 

I  therefore  remind  you  that  this  resolution,  or  more  exactly,  this 
proposed  resolution,  unanimously  adopted  at  the  Paris  conference 
on  the  motion  of  Citizen  Vandervelde  and  myself,  had  already 
brought  up  the  question  of  the  participation  of  the  German  and  Aus¬ 
trian  delegations  in  the  International  Labor  Conference.  But  an 
unbiased  consideration  of  the  question  arising  at  the  present  time 
goes  farther  than  that.  I  have  just  said  that  a  simple  reading  of  the 
text  of  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report  would  show  the  evolution  of  this  ques¬ 
tion.  There  are,  obviously,  reasons  for  this  evolution.  There  have 
been  changes  which  may  not  be  known  by  the  delegates  of  other 
countries,  but  which  the  French  delegates  can  not  fail  to  know,  as 
discussions  of  the  subject  appeared  in  all  the  papers. 

I  do  not  want  to  drag  the  personality  of  the  president  of  the  French 
Cabinet  into  the  debate — I  could,  but  I  will  refrain;  but  at  the  same 
time  I  wish  that  Mr.  Gu6rin  would  Consider  the  fact  that  the  resolu¬ 
tions  adopted  by  the  Supreme  Peace  Council  were  the  result  of  inter¬ 
polations  which  themselves  depended  on  the  adoption  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  program  by  the  official  Paris  conference;  and  that  these  inter¬ 
polations  tended  toward  the  participation  of  all  nations,  excluding 
none,  in  the  Washington  conference,  which  was  to  discuss  one  of  the 
most  important  points  of  international  labor  legislation. 

We  have  been  consistent  and  logical.  It  may  be  that  at  times 
logic  conflicts  with  sentiment,  but  is  there  any  reason  for  abandoning 
a  logical  path  for  a  sentimental  one?  I  think  not.  I  believe  we 
should  stick  to  logic,  because  it  agrees  with  facts,  and  that  if  we  left 
a  logical  course,  Mr.  Guerin,  we  should  risk  getting  caught  in  our  own 
trap  and  having  the  outcome  react  unfavorably  against  us. 

I  will  cite  one  example,  that  of  the  8-hour  day.  We  are  going  to 
discuss  the  8-hour  day  at  the  meetings  of  the  conference  from  an 
international  point  of  view.  Do  you  think  that  you  will  be  able  to  ap¬ 
ply  this  particular  legislation  to  Germany  and  Austria  to-morrow  if  you 
have  not  allowed  them  to  be  present  at  the  conference,  nor  allowed 
them  to  take  part  in  discussions  of  the  question?  At  this  very 
moment,  when  we  are  being  asked  to  bar  German  and  Austrian  dele¬ 
gations  from  tl>e  Washington  conference — i.  e.,  at  the  discussions  of 
this  important  question — our  newspapers  have  daily  accounts  of  how 
laborers  in  Germany  are  working  9  and  10  hours.  What  means  can 
we  use  to  prevent  this  competition  between  the  two  ccuntries  unless 
we  force  Germany,  by  participation  in  the  Washington  conference, 
to  cease  her  opposition  to  the  8-hour  day,  if  she  does  oppose  it? 

That  is  the  first  point.  It  is  not  necessary  to  search  far  afield  to 
realize  the  value  of  the  theory  we  are  supporting.  As  Mr.  Guerin 
said  himself,  the  war  is  over,  it  is  peace  time — obviously  it  could  not 
possibly  occur  to  any  delegate  that  conditions  imposed  here,  with 
certain  nations  excluded,  could  be  imposed  on  these  nations  in  the 
future  by  force. 

Another  reason  for  the  stand  we  are  taking  is  the  fact  that  we,  the 
labor  representatives,  are  firm  believers  in  the  idea  of  a  league  of 
nations. 

The  League  of  Nations  has  brought  a  ray  of  light  to  the  dark  sorrow 
which  has  been  ours  for  four  and  a  half  years.  It  has  come  as  a 
comfort  to  us,  and  we  have  felt — the  laborers  of  France  have  felt 
unanimously — that  it  was  our  future  hope,  and  that  the  horrible 
spectacle  which  we  have  witnessed  would  forever  disappear  with  the 
institution  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Allow  me  to  repeat  what  I 
said  at  the  official  Paris  conference.  At  that  time  in  agreement  with 
Mr.  Vandervelde,  the  Belgian  representative,  we  said: 

The  work  in  which  you  have  been  called  to  participate  is  a  magnificent  work  pro¬ 
viding  that  it  does  not  become  sterile,  providing  that  it  brings  positive  results  to  the 
people  who  are  awaiting  anxiously  the  outcome  of  your  deliberations. 


24 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


We  may  repeat  the  same  words  to-day,  and  I  think  I  may  state 
in  the  name  of  the  labor  delegates  here  present  that  we  expect  to 
emanate  from  the  real  league  of  nations  a  reign  of  peace,  in  which 
labor  can  be  developed  for  the  best  collective  interests  of  all 
humanity.  And  it  is  for  that  reason,  a  reason  which  must  be  added 
to  all  the  economic  reasons  which  I  do  not  wish  to  discuss  here 
unless  I  am  forced  into  it — 1  repeat,  it  is  for  that  supplementary 
reason  which  has  just  been  added  to  the  reasons  already  explained 
at  the  beginning  of  the  conference,  that  it  is  indispensable  for 
Germany  and  Austria  to  take  part  in  what  we  are  doing,  as  well  as 
for  all  the  other  countries  which  have  asked  to  participate.  I  con¬ 
sider  the  question  of  prime  importance,  because  we  can  not  pretend 
to  exclude  any  nations  from  our  deliberations  to-day  and  then 
expect  them  to  apply  our  decisions  to-morrow.  That  is  not  only 
contrary  to  logic  but  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  justice,  and  I  do  not 
think  we  can  adopt  under  any  form  a  policy  we  have  stigmatized  as 
the  scrap-of-paper  policy.  Partisans  of  justice  we  shall  remain,  and 
we  demand  that  representatives  from  all  nations  shall  enter  into 
free  discussion  with  us,  make  sincere  decisions,  and  then  make  an 
application  in  good  faith  of  the  principles  adopted.  That  is  why 
we  consider  that  the  proposal  made  by  the  organization  commit¬ 
tee — which  is  no  more  than  application  of  the  proposed  program 
accepted  by  the  official  conference  at  Paris — should  be  adopted  by 
the  conference,  so  that  on  one  hand  the  people  shall  not  be  deceived 
in  their  hopes  of  the  effective  outcome  of  this  conference,  and  on  the 
other  hand  that  there  may  be  a  regular  evolution  of  the  International 
Labor  Conference  toward  the  final  results  expected  by  the  whole 
world. 

Gentlemen,  you  have  only  to  glance  at  the  situation  in  every 
country  in  order  to  realize  the  disheartening  and  tragic  conflicts 
that  are  taking  place.  On  the  solution  of  these  conflicts  depends 
the  stability  of  the  normal  evolution  of  all  humanity. 

Remember  that  if  your  decision  appears  ineffectual  at  the  present 
time  it  will  cast  the  workers — the  whole  producing  world— into 
despair,  and  the  upshot  of  that  will  be  that  it  will  be  impossible  to 
bring  about  the  situation  you  wish. 

You  must  consider  this  condition,  because  it  is  of  capital  impor¬ 
tance  to  all  countries.  Possibly  some  countries  are  not  yet  affected, 
but  they  will  be  in  the  near  future  unless  the  international  condi¬ 
tions  established  by  the  present  conference  fail  to  fulfill  the  hopes 
and  aspirations  of  the  laboring  world. 

Now,  Mr.  Gudrin— and  he  will  forgive  me  for  taking  him  to  task — 
spoke  to  us  of  the  situation  in  America  with  regard  to  the  nonratifi¬ 
cation  of  the  Peace  Treaty.  I  do  not  think  this  is  a  question  which 
concerns  us — it  concerns  the  American  Government  alone.  The 
American  Government  must  decide  this  and  not  we.  I  think  that 
at  the  present  time  there  is  not  an  opposing  idea  in  the  official 
spheres  of  all  the  allied  or  associated  Governments  to  that  contained 
in  the  resolution  proposed  by  the  organization  committee. 

Consequently,  in  view  of  the  above-mentioned  considerations,  in 
view  of  the  facts  to  which  we  have  made  appeal,  and  in  view  of  the 
state  of  mind  observed  in  the  directing  spheres  of  the  allied  and 
associated  countries,  I  demand  in  the  name  of  the  French  labor 
delegation  and  in  the  name  of  all  the  labor  delegations,  that  the 
conference  adopt  the  resolution  proposed  by  the  organization  com¬ 
mittee.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  from  Spain  is  recognized. 

Mr.  SAL  A  (Spain — remarks  in  French).  I  had  asked  for  the  floor 
before  Mr.  Jouhaux  spoke,  but  after  hearing  him  I  have  little  to  say 
to  you.  I  wish  to  add  only  this:  According  to  the  words  of  my 
colleague,  Mr.  Guerin,  employers’  delegate  from  France,  according 
to  the  reports  and  documents  which  have  been  submitted  to  us, 
according  to  the  words  of  Mr.  Jouhaux,  the  question  before  us  is  not 
whether  representatives  from  Germany  and  Austria  are  to  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  the  conference,  but  rather  only  at  what  time  they  shall  be 
admitted  to  the  conference. 

We  are  gathered  here  to  lay  the  foundations  for  social  and  industrial 
legislation,  and  it  is  for  that  reason,  as  I  understand  it,  that  the 


powers  have  made  an  agreement  that  the  conference  itself  shall 
decide  as  to  the  time  when  Germany  and  Austria  are  to  be  admitted. 
Now,  if  we  are  to  make  social  legislation,  it  is  impossible,  as  Mr. 
Jouhaux  has  said,  to  leave  countries  out  of  this  conference  which 
have  as  much  interest  as  ourselves  in  the  questions  which  we  are  to 
settle. 

As  an  employers’  representative  from  Spain,  I  express  the  opinion, 
the  opinion  of  the  employers’  representation  from  Spain,  that  we 
should  admit  them  now,  concurring  in  the  report  which  we  have 
before  us,  in  order  that  the  decisions  which  we  shall  make  here  shall 
bind  those  countries  as  they  will  bind  ours. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  I  take  the  floor  to  remind 
you,  as  was  done  a  few  moments  ago  by  the  French  workers’  dele¬ 
gate  (Mr.  Jouhaux),  that  in  fact  the  Peace  Conference  at  Paris 
through  the  labor  commission,  announced  the  principle  that  the 
Central  Powers,  in  spite  of  their  evil-doings  and  their  crimes,  should 
be  admitted  to  the  International  Labor  Conference.  Mr.  Jouhaux 
recalls  the  fact  that  the  Belgian  and  French  delegations  had  offered 
a  motion  to  this  effect.  Mr.  Jouhaux  has  forgotten  that  the  Italian 
delegation  was  associated  on  this  point  with  the  French  and  Belgian 
delegations.  I  request  permission  to  read  the  resolution  in  the  En¬ 
glish  text: 

Proposed  by  the  Belgian,  French,  and  Italian  delegations:  The  commission  being 
of  opinion  that  an  international  accord  on  labor  legislation  which  will  be  really  effec- 
tive  can  not  be  secured  withoutthecooperationofalltheindustrialcountries  *  *  * 

I  will  omit  the  remainder  of  the  resolution.  It  was  very  clear 
that  “all  the  industrial  countries”  included  Germany  and  Austria. 

We  of  the  Italian  delegation,  who  have  suffered  at  various  times 
from  foreign  rule  and  from  wars  waged  in  our  own  territory,  under¬ 
stand  perfectly  the  feeling  of  indignation  which  animated  some  of 
Mr.  Guerin’s  words;  but,  as  before  at  Paris,  we  affirm  again  here  that 
politics  must  as  far  as  possible  keep  out  of  conferences  at  which 
labor  questions  are  being  discussed.  We  believe  that  our  eyes  must 
be  turned  toward  the  future  rather  than  be  fixed  upon  the  past. 
We  believe  that  we  can  not  with  impunity  set  aside  and  put  on  the 
shelf  a  nation  of  80,000,000  souls,  among  whom  there  are  masses 
of  workmen;  a  nation  which  has  shown  what  its  industrial  power 
was  and  the  labor  force  at  its  disposal.  That  is  why,  as  early  as 
at  the  Paris  conference,  we  were  of  the  opinion  that  Germany  and 
Austria  ought  to  enter  the  labor  commission  and  the  labor  conference. 
That  being  said,  we  maintain  our  point  of  view. 

The  question  which  presents  itself  to-day  is  this:  Are  these  powers 
to  enter  the  labor  conference  immediately  or  later? 

Gentlemen,  if  we  are  to  admit  them,  if  they  are  to  enter  this  con¬ 
ference,  it  is  better  that  they  should  come  in  now,  better  that  they 
should  come  in  now  rather  than  later,  better  that  they  should  take 
part  from  now  on  in  our  deliberations.  Mr.  Jouhaux  has  pointed  out 
the  danger  that  there  was  in  leaving  Germany  and  Austria  outside 
the  scope  of  the  resolutions  which  we  are  going  to  adopt.  Who  will 
guarantee  us  against  the  danger  that  after  we  have  adopted  the 
eight-hour  day  those  powers  will  not  adopt  it  and  will  thereby  be 
in  a  position  to  engage  in  destructive  competition? 

If  Germany  and  Austria  remain  outside  of  our  deliberations,  we 
have  everything  to  fear  from  them;  if  they  take  part  in  the  labor 
conference,  we  shall  have  a  control  over  them,  we  shall  watch  them 
and  know  what  they  are  doing,  we  shall  have  guaranties  from  them 
as  to  their  behavior. 

For  that  reason,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  I  move  to  put  an  end  to 
these  questions  which  have  so  stirred  us  up.  I  concur  in  the  opinion 
of  Dr.  Nolens,  which  is  to  adqpt  the  resolution  proposed  by  the 
organizing  committee,  and  at  the  same  time  strike  out  the  words 
“acting  in  conformity  with  the  decisions  of  the  Allied  and  Associated 
Powers.”  Therefore,  the  International  Labor  Conference  votes 
their  admission  into  the  League  of  Nations,  etc.  I  have  finished. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President,  in  view  of  the 
lateness  of  the  hour  I  should  like  to  apply  for  the  first  time  article  14 
of  our  standing  rules,  and  I  desire  to  move  that  the  discussion  be 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


25 


closed,  adding  that  for  my  part  I  should  like  to  accept  the  proposi¬ 
tion  as  it  was  made  by  the  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Do  I  understand  that  to  be  a  motion  to  close 
the  debate? 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Why,  certainly;  just  as  I  have 
said;  I  so  move. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  think  the  meaning  of  this - 

The  PRESIDENT.  No  discussion  on  this  question  of  closing 
debate.  If  the  conference  desires  to  close  debate,  it  may  do  so;  if  it 
desires  that  the  debate  may  be  continued,  it  can  do  so  by  recording 
its  vote  accordingly. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  May  we  speak  upon  the  motion  which 
has  just  been  made?  It  is  never  forbidden  in  any  assembly  to  speak 
upon  a  motion  which  has  been  made.  Of  course,  if  we  are  to  be 
muzzled  here - - 

'  The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  not  debatable.  The  ques¬ 
tion  must  be  put  to  the  house. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  May  I  be  permitted  to  be  per¬ 
fectly  just  toward  Mr.  Guerin?  It  says  in  our  regulations  that  if 
anyone  calls  for  the  floor  in  order  to  speak  against  closing  the  dis¬ 
cussion  only  one  speaker  shall  be  recognized.  I  support  Mr.  Guerin. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  against  closure  and  not  on  the  propo¬ 
sition  itself. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  You  have  attacked  me  twice  with  your 
guns,  so  it  is  right  that  you  should  help  me  now.  The  doctor  sup¬ 
ports  me  as  the  rope  supports  a  man  being  hanged,  but  anyway,  he 
supports  me,  and  I  am  very  glad. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  not  debatable.  The  ques¬ 
tion  must  be  put  to  the  house. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  I  beg  to  observe  that  I  asked  for  the 
floor  before  Mr.  Nolens.  Out  of  deference  to  his  station  I  did  not 
protest  when  he  took  it  away,  but  I  find  myself  deprived  of  a  right 
which  I  would  exercise  were  I  less  courteous;  besides,  I  believe  that 
we  agree  and  I  am  sure  that  if  one  of  our  worker  colleagues  were  de¬ 
prived  of  his  freedom  of  debate  I  would  protest  with  all  my  strength. 
We  ought  not  at  the  very  start  of  this  conference  to  adopt  a  method 
of  procedure  before  we  commence  work  in  order  that - 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  is  not  in  order.  The 
representative  has  not  the  right  to  talk  twice  upon  the  question, 
under  the  rules.  Unless  he  desires  to  be  heard  against  the  closure 
of  debate,  the  Chair  will  be  unable  to  recognize  him. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  But  I  am  speaking  upon  closing  the  dis¬ 
cussion;  I  have  not  spoken  upon  any  other  subject. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  You  could  not  speak  upon  the 
closing  if  I  had  not  moved  it,  if  I  had  not  taken  the  floor;  I  moved 
the  closing  of  discussion. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  But  if  I  had  called  for  the  floor  before¬ 
hand,  supposing  I  had  been  recognized,  you  would  have  made  your 
motion  afterwards. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  attempting  to  establish  a  precedent 
until  the  Chair  is  more  familiar  with  the  rules  than  he  is  now,  the 
Chair  will  recognize  Mr.  Gu6rin  in  opposition  to  the  closure. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  What  I  say  is  that  at  the  very  threshold 
of  our  labors  a  question  has  been  raised  here  which  it  is  to  the  interest 
of  everybody  to  settle  once  for  all.  It  is  quite  understood  that  if 
there  were  any  abuse  of  speech  on  the  part  of  the  speakers,  we  would 
invoke  the  article  to  which  the  doctor  has  had  recourse  so  as  not  to 
weary  the  meeting  and  prolong  it  indefinitely.  But,  really,  has  any¬ 
one  among  us  as  yet  abused  the  privilege  of  speech?  I  asked  for  the 
floor  in  order  to  make  three  or  four  remarks  in  reply  to  Mr.  Jouhaux, 
which  I  would  have  finished  long  ago  had  not  this  article  which  has 
to  do  with  the  closing  of  debate  been  invoked.  Consequently  you 
are  not  saving  our  time,  Doctor,  you  are  making  us  waste  it,  if  I 
may  be  allowed  to  say  so  respectfully.  Truly,  it  is  a  question  of 
courtesy  among  us.  Inasmuch  as  none  of  us  has  abused  his  privilege, 
do  not  let  anyone  come  at  the  beginning  of  our  deliberations  and  try 


to  muzzle  us.  If  we  were  to  have  our  mouths  closed  when  we  want 
to  express  a  thought  which  we  consider  useful,  we  should  leave  the 
meeting,  because  such  action  would  show  a  lack  of  consideration  for 
all  those  who  are  here.  I  offer  my  excuses  for  saying  this,  Doctor. 
I  have  infinite  respect  for  your  character,  but  I  must  tell  you  that 
you  are  too  severe.  Yesterday,  again,  you  told  us  that  we  were 
wasting  our  time  over  unimportant  matters.  You  did  not  know, 
on  the  contrary — permit  me  to  say  this  respectfully — that  what  we 
wanted  to  discuss  was  very  important. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  You  are  not  acquainted  with  arti¬ 
cle  14  of  our  standing  orders. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Mr.  President,  if  you  will  kindly  make 
use  of  your  presidential  authority — it  will  not  take  me  three  min¬ 
utes — in  order  to  allow  me  to  answer  my  colleague,  Mr.  Jouhaux, 
it  would  be  much  simpler  than  indefinitely  prolonging  the  discus¬ 
sion  over  an  idle  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  unable  to  grant  the  request. 
Article  10  provides,  in  the  thirteenth  paragraph,  that  “no  speaker 
shall  address  the  conference  more  than  once  on  the  same  subject 
during  the  general  discussion.”  We  are  now  on  the  general  dis¬ 
cussion,  and  no  speaker  can  be  recognized  by  the  Chair  more  than 
once  in  the  general  discussion. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Well,  it  is  a  deplorable  article,  because 
everybody  knows  that  when  a  discussion  is  being  carried  on,  one  is 
led  by  the  statements  which  a  speaker  has  made  to  make  some 
reply  to  him.  Under  these  conditions,  the  discussion  is  singularly 
shortened  or  botched,  if  you  will  permit  me  this  expression.  I  shall 
make  up  for  it  to-morrow,  while  otherwise  you  would  have  finished 
with  this  at  once. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Of  course  that  is  a  matter  that  is  not  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Chair.  I  am  guided  by  your  will,  not  by  mine, 
as  to  the  formation  of  your  rules. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  It  is  an  appearance  rather  than  a  reality; 
considering  that  we  have  not  finally  passed  these  standing  orders, 
we  have  not  even  read  them. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
rules,  like  the  other  portions  of  the  standing  orders,  are  but  pro¬ 
visional?  They  have  only  been  adopted  provisionally,  and  if  you 
find  that  they  do  not  give  you  ample  opportunity  you  can,  when 
you  are  considering  them  for  ultimate  adoption,  make  such  changes 
as  you  will.  The  question  now  occurs* on  the  motion  to  close  debate. 
As  many  as  are  in  favor  of  closing  debate  will  raise  their  right  hands 
and  keep  them  raised  until  counted  by  the  secretary. 

[The  secretary  counted  the  votes  of  those  in  favor.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  who  are  opposed  to  closing  debate 
will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted  by 
the  secretary. 

[The  secretary  counted  the  votes  of  those  opposed.] 

Mr.  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  announce  the  vote. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  There 
voted  in  favor  of  the  motion  65;  against,  10. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  majority  having  voted  in  favor  of  the 
motion,  the  debate  is  closed. 

The  motion  now  recurs  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Baron  Mayor 
des  Planches,  of  the  Italian  delegation,  to  strike  out  from  the  resolu¬ 
tion  the  words  “with  the  same  rights  and  obligations  possessed  by 
the  other  members  of  the  labor  organization.”  I  have  the  amend¬ 
ment,  and  as  long  as  I  have  it  noted  here,  I  will  state  it  again.  The 
amendment  of  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  is  to  strike  out  of  the  last 
paragraph  of  the  preamble  the  words  “acting  in  accordance  with 
the  decisions  of  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers.  ”  Let  us  get  this 
right  before  we  vote  on  it.  Will  one  of  the  translators  get  the  amend¬ 
ment  as  proposed? 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  May  I  be  allowed  to 
explain  my  thought?  My  thought  was  that  we  should  adopt  this 
resolution  proposed  by  the  organizing  committee  with  a  suggestion 


26 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


to  leave  in  only  the  following  words:  “The  International  Labor 
Conference  decrees  their  admission,  etc.” 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  I  call  for  the  floor,  to  speak  on  the 
amendment. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  In  the  face  of  a  threat¬ 
ened  prolongation  of  the  discussion  I  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  That  is  what  is  called  a  mean  trick.  I 
call  for  the  floor  in  order  to  speak  upon  the  withdrawal  of  the  amend¬ 
ment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  withdraws  his 
amendment,  and  the  question  now  recurs  on  the  motion  to  adopt 
the  preamble  and  resolution  as  presented  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  on  behalf 
of  the  organizing  committee. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  And  I  reinstate  the  amendment  with¬ 
drawn  by  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

The  PRESIDENT.  M.  Gu6rin  objects  to  the  withdrawal  of  the 
amendment,  and  the  vote  will  occur  upon  the  amendment  as  sub¬ 
mitted  by  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches.  The  amendment  is  to  strike 
out  of  the  last  paragraph  of  the  preamble  the  words  “acting  in 
accordance  with  the  decisions  of  the  Allied  and  Associated  Powers.” 

As  many  as  favor  the  amendment  will  raise  their  right  hands  and 
keep  them  raised  until  they  are  counted  by  the  secretary. 

[The  secretary  counted  the  votes  in  favor.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands 
and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[The  secretary  counted  the  votes  opposed.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  announce  the  vote. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  For  the  amendment,  4;  against,  40. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is  lost.  The  question  now 
occurs  on  the  motion  to  adopt  the  preamble  and  resolution  as  pre¬ 
sented  by  Mr.  Fontaine  on  behalf  of  the  organizing  committee.  As 
many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  will  hold  up  their  right 
hands  and  keep  them  up  until  counted  by  the  secretary. 

[The  secretary  counted  the  votes  in  favor.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  Belgium  is  recognized 
to  explain  his  vote. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  Gentlemen,  I  speak  in  the  name  of 
the  employers  of  Belgium,  and  I  ask  to  explain  in  a  word  my  views 
on  the  motion  which  has  just  been  put  to  a  vote.  We  did  not  wish 
to  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  B.ut  the  question  of  voting  has  not  yet 
been  brought  up. 

A  Delegate.  Yes,  it  has. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Why,  no,  not  at  all. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  We  do  not  wish  to  vote  against 
it  on  account  of  the  economic  necessities  which  are  imposed  upon 
us,  but  we  can  not  vote  for  it  because  Germany  has  violated  all 
her  engagements  toward  Belgium  and  because  the  Germans,  for  the 
four  years  of  their  occupation,  systematically  carried  out  the  com¬ 
plete  destruction  of  our  industry.  Belgium  has  received  from  the 
entire  world  too  many  evidences  of  sympathy  for  our  attitude  not 
to  be  understood  and  perhaps  approved  of  by  everybody. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  I  call  for  the  floor.  Are  we  not  voting 
against  it  now?  I  wish  to  vote  against  it.  The  question  has  not 
been  brought  up. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Mahaim  has  the  floor  to  explain  his  vote. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  I  am  expressing  not  only  my 
personal  opinion,  but  I  am  speaking  in  the  name  of  Minister 
Michel  Levie,  first  delegate  of  the  Belgian  Government,  whose 
opinion  agrees  with  that  of  the  delegate  of  the  Belgian  workmen, 
Mr.  Mertens.  We  desire  to  state  that  we  vote  for  the  resolution. 
It  is  needless  to  say  that  we  share  the  feelings  toward  the  Germans 
expressed  by  Mr.  Guerin  and  Mr.  Carlier.  But,  just  for  the  very 
reasons  which  lead  Mr.  Carlier  to  abstain  from  voting,  we  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  economic  necessities  and  the  best  interests  of  this 
conference  compel  us  to  admit  the  Germans. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  opposed  to  the  resolution  will  raise 
their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted  by  the  secretary. 

[The  secretary  counted  the  vote  of  those  opposed.] 


Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  The 
result  of  the  vote  is,  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  71;  against,  1;  1 
abstention. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  That’s  fine,  gentlemen;  “splendid  isola¬ 
tion.”  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  •  The  resolution  is  carried. 

The  next  order  of  business  on  the  provisional  program  is  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  the  committee  on  credentials.  The  secretary  will  make  an 
announcement. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  I  just 
want  to  explain  that  those  white  passes  that  have  just  been  distrib¬ 
uted  to  the  delegates  are  necessary  to  enable  them  to  get  into  the 
Navy  Building  after  5.30  p.  m.  Any  delegate  who  has  not  got  that 
piece  of  white  paper  with  him  after  that  hour,  or  on  Sunday,  will 
not  be  able  to  obtain  admission. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  from  Ecuador. 

Mr.  ELIZALDE  (Ecuador — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  should  like  to 
know  whether  it  is  true  that  Mexico  has  not  been  invited. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  think  I  can  inform  the  representative  that 
Mexico  has  not  been  invited;  that  no  nation  was  invited  that  was 
not  either  named  in  the  annex  or  signatory  to  the  peace  treaty,  and, 
consequently,  Mexico,  not  being  in  either  class,  was  not  included  in 
the  invitation. 

Mr.  ELIZALDE  (Ecuador — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  should  like  to 
say  that  I  intend  to  move  that  Mexico  be  invited  to  this  conference. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  shall  second  the  motion. 

Mr.  CASTBERG  (Norway).  I  should  like  to  know  if  and  when 
Finland  is  admitted  to  this  conference.  I  refer  to  what  is  said  on 
page  10  in  the  printed  report.  It  is  said  there  that  it  should  be  left 
to  the  decision  of  this  conference.  I  know  that  delegates  from  Fin¬ 
land  have  come  here  to  Washington. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  suggest  to  the  representative  from 
Ecuador  and  the  representative  from  Norway - 

Mr.  CASTBERG.  No;  not  Norway.  Norway  is  represented  here, 
but  from  Finland. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No?  You  are  from  Finland?  I  suggest  to 
the  representative  from  Ecuador,  who  has  raised  the  question  with 
regard  to  Mexico,  and  the  representative  from  Norway,  who  has 
raised  the  question  with  regard  to  Finland,  that  if  they  desire  these 
matters  considered  either  as  amendments  to  proposals  pending,  or  as 
proposals  pending,  or  as  new  proposals,  that  they  submit  the  ques¬ 
tions  in  writing  in  accordance  with  the  standing  orders,  and  then 
it  will  come  before  the  conference  in  regular  order. 

With  that  explanation  I  will  call  attention  of  the  conference  to 
the  fact  that  the  motion  of  the  representative  from  Ecuador  is  not 
in  order. 

The  rules  provide,  in  article  3,  that — 

All  amendments  or  motions  must  be  handed  in  to  the  secretary  at  the  conference. 
They  will  be  printed  for  the  sitting  on  the  day  following  that  on  which  they  have 
been  handed  in.  As  a  general  rule,  no  amendment  or  motion  shall  be  discussed  or 
made  the  subject  of  a  vote  in  the  course  of  a  sitting  unless  it  has  been  circulated  not 
later  than  the  beginning  of  that  sitting  to  all  members  of  the  conference  as  provided 
by  article  11  of  the  present  standing  order. 

Mr.  ELIZALDE  (Ecuador — remarks  in  Spanish).  In  accordance 
with  the  rules,  I  have  deposited  the  motion  at  the  desk. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Rowell,  the  Canadian  delegate. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  just  on  the  question 
raised,  as  it  is  one  that  touches  the  constitution  of  this  conference,  I 
would  respectfully  submit  that  the  motion  is  not  in  order,  even  if 
notice  were  given  in  accordance  with  the  rules.  This  conference  is 
proceeding  under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  between  the  Allied 
and  Associated  Powers  and  Germany,  constituting  the  League  of 
Nations;  and  if  we  are  following  that  procedure  we  have  no  right 
to  admit  to  the  conference  any  who  are  not  authorized  to  come  in 
under  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  and  the  League  of  Nations.  As 
I  understand  it,  the  only  basis  on  which  we  have  dealt  with  Germany 
and  Austria  is  that  the  matter  was  expressly  remitted  to  us  by  the 
Supreme  Allied  War  Council  and  because  there  was  some  under¬ 
standing  at  the  time  the  Treaty  of  Peace  was  signed  with  Germany. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


27 


The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  call  Mr.  Rowell’s  attention  to  the  fact 
that  that  would  be  a  matter  that  would  properly  come  up  for  con¬ 
sideration  when  the  proposed  motion  is  presented.  Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  wish  to  say  that  in  so  far  as  Finland 
and  Luxemburg  are  concerned  we  have  been  informed  by  the 
Supreme  Council  of  the  particular  situation  of  these  two  countries; 
I  have  recounted  the  fact  in  my  report  and  desire  to  call  attention 
to  it.  As  it  has  been  laid  before  this  conference  by  the  Supreme 
Council  it  is  a  question  for  consideration  on  the  agenda,  as  far  as 
those  countries  are  concerned. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Not  at  the  present  time,  however.  The  ques¬ 
tion  before  the  conference  now  is  that  of  selecting  a  credential  com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  I  have  the  pleasure  to  propose  Mr. 
Oudegeest  as  the  workers’  delegate  on  the  committee  on  verification 
of  credentials.  The  workers’  delegates  have  decided  to  propose  him. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Oudegeest  is  named  as  one  of  the  members 
of  the  credentials  committee,  nominated  by  the  labor  members  of  the 
Belgian  delegation. 

Mr.  MAH  AIM  (Belgium).  On  behalf  of  the  Government  dele¬ 
gates  I  propose  the  name  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain,  has 
been  proposed  on  behalf  of  the  Government  representatives.  Have 
the  employers’  representatives  a  nomination  to  make? 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  It  is  too  late  now.  It  is  6  o’clock.  Dr. 
Nolens  has  moved  for  a  closing  of  discussion;  well,  I  regret  that  he  is 
not  here. 

Mr.  MAR.TORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  We  have  a  proposal 
to  make.  We  put  forward  the  name  of  Mr.  Carlier,  Belgian  delegate 
for  the  employers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  names  that  have  been 
proposed  as  committee  on  credentials. 

As  many  as  favor  the  selection  of  these  three  as  a  committee  on 
credentials  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until 
counted  by  the  secretary.  (Hands  raised.)  Those  opposed.  The 
gentlemen  are  selected  unanimously. 

The  secretary  desires  to  make  a  request. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  Before  the 
committee  on  credentials  begin  their  sittings,  I  should  like  to  an¬ 
nounce  that  credentials  have  not  yet  been  received  from  the  follow¬ 
ing  countries: 

Bolivia.  Haiti.  Paraguay.  Salvador. 

Colombia.  Nicaragua.  Peru.  Siam. 

Ecuador.  Panama.  Roumania.  Spain. 

In  order  that  the  committee  may  be  able  to  commence  its  work 
with  all  the  information  before  it  and  to  finish  it  as  soon  as  possible, 
it  would  be  of  great  assistance  if  the  credentials  of  those  countries 
could  be  handed  in  to  the  secretariat. 

Mr.  GROUITCH  (Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes).  We  have  just  had 
a  list  read  of  the  States  whose  delegates  have  not  yet  submitted  their 
credentials.  Amongst  those  States  is  also  the  State  of  the  Serbs, 
Croats,  and  Slovenes,  but  it  is  not  mentioned  in  that  list.  That  is 
why  I  want  to  say  that  we  have  not  yet  submitted  our  credentials, 
for  the  reason  that  all  the  delegates  are  not  here  yet.  I  am  the  only 
one  present.  The  others  are  coming;  they  are  on  their  way,  and  I 
have  been  informed  that  they  carry  the  credentials.  Therefore  I 
ask  that  the  names  of  these  delegates  should  be  included  among 
those  who  have  not  yet  presented  their  credentials,  to  explain  the 
reason  why  they  have  not  done  so  yet. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  make  an  announcement. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  The  secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Government  delegates  asks  me  to  say  that  there  will  be 
a  meeting  of  the  Government  delegates  in  the  Columbus  room  im¬ 
mediately  after  this  meeting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Your  standing  orders  provide  no  time  of  ad¬ 
journment  and  no  time  of  meeting.  May  I  ask  what  the  pleasure 
of  the  conference  is  with  regard  to  adjournment  and  with  regard  to 
coni  ening. 


Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  I  propose  to-morrow  at  10  o’clock 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  Greece  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  SOFIANOPOULOS  (Greece).  Only  the  Greek  Government 
delegates  have  arrived.  The  employers’  delegate  will,  I  believe, 
be  here  to-morrow.  The  workers’  delegate  has  been  designated  by 
the  Government,  but  he  has  not  yet  arrived  on  account  of  the  diffi¬ 
culties  of  travel.  I  ask  the  conference  to  be  so  kind  as  to  accept 
their  credentials  as  soon  as  they  arrive. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  matter,  I  presume,  would  be  dealt 
with  by  the  committee  on  credentials. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  move  that  we  now  adjourn  until  10 
o’clock  to-morrow  morning. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  that  we  adjourn  until 
10  o’clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Seconded. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  No,  I  call  for  the  floor.  Gentlemen,  we 
came  here  to  work,  that  is  understood,  and  I  beg  you  to  believe  that 
we  have  a  keen  desire,  in  spite  of  all  the  charms  of  this  great  and 
beautiful  city,  to  remain  in  Washington  only  as  long  as  is  strictly 
necessary.  But  neither  did  we  come  to  make  ourselves  ill.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  came  to  do  good  work.  Now,  if  we  are  to  have  a 
session  in  the  morning  and  one  in  the  afternoon,  it  will  be  impossi¬ 
ble  for  us  to  work  between  times. 

The  secretariat  was  kind  enough  to  tell  me  on  the  other  hand, 
and  I  shall  ask  Mr.  Fontaine,  who  is  listening  to  me  at  this  moment, 
to  be  good  enough  to  second  my  motion,  that  their  office  is  simply 
swamped  with  work,  so  closely  do  the  sessions  follow  one  another. 
We  can  permit  that  at  the  beginning,  but  we  really  can  not  permit 
it  for  the  continuation  of  the  work.  My  colleague,  Mr.  Jouhaux, 
concurs  with  me  on  this  point,  and  the  entire  French  delegation, 
workers’  and  employers’. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  And  I,  too. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France) .  Hence  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  to  accept  a 
proposition  which  is  reasonable.  Let  us  meet  afternoons  at  2  o’clock, 
half  past  2;  in  short,  appoint  any  time  you  please,  but  let  us  devote 
the  morning  to  other  things. 

Permit  me  an  argument  in  support  of  my  proposition.  What  we 
have  come  here  for  is  not  taking  place  and  will  not  take  place  merely 
in  public  sessions.  When  we  take  up  difficult  subjects  like  the 
eight-hour  day,  for  instance,  we  shall  need  to  negotiate  among  our¬ 
selves;  the  employers’  delegates  will  need  to  have  a  word  with  the 
workers’  delegation,  and  reciprocally.  Finally,  in  other  words, 
there  is  in  work  of  this  kind  that  which  is  seen  and  that  which  is  not 
seen.  We  must  then  make  it  materially  possible  to  carry  on  nego¬ 
tiations  outside  of  the  public  sessions  and  also  to  make  the  necessary 
study  of  the  documents. 

I  move  then,  as  strongly  as  possible,  that  there  he  no  public  ses¬ 
sions  in  the  morning,  and  that  the  afternoon  alone  be  devoted  to 
public  sessions. 

A  Voice.  Every  day? 

Mr.  GUERIN.  Not  even  every  day;  the  best  thing  would  be  every 
other  day,  and  we  should  get  on  faster  in  that  way. 

There  is  also  the  question  of  those  colleagues  who  have  not  ar¬ 
rived,  but  ydio  are  on  the  way.  And  I  may  say  that  if  the  presence 
of  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates  is  so  dear  to  you — and  I  must 
think  so,  since  I  am  alone  in  objecting  to  it — you  must  be  consistent 
to  yourselves  and  give  them  time  to  get  here. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Draper,  the  delegate  from  Canada. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  understand  from  Mr.  Fontaine’s  sec¬ 
retary  that  there  is  considerable  work  that  he  must  prepare  in 
order  to  place  it  before  the  conference.  I  also  understand  from  Mr. 
Jouhaux,  one  of  the  labor  representatives  from  France,  that  they 
have  considerable  work  to  do.  In  view  of  that  fact.  I  am  quite  will¬ 
ing  to  change  my  motion;  I  move  that  we  adjourn  to  meet  at  2.30  to¬ 
morrow  afternoon. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  now  before  you  is  that  we  ad¬ 
journ  till  2.30  to-morrow  afternoon.  As  many  as  favor  adjournment 


28 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


will  raise  their  right  hands.  [Hands  raised.]  Down.  Those  op¬ 
posed  raise  their  right  hands.  Carried. 

[Whereupon  at  6.20  o’clock  p.  m.  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Friday.  October  31,  1919,  at  2.30  p.  m.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  L6vie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Cariier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for  Hon. 

Gideon  D.  Kobertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

Mr.  G.  Munizaga  Varela. 

China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Dr.  F.  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  C.  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  Francis  Hodacz. 


Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr  Don  J.  Cueva  Garcia. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  F.  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  A.  Palomo  Rodriguez 
Mr.  Manuel  Morino. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 


I  taly — Continued. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Mr  Ferdinando  Quartieri. 

Japan: 

Dr.  M.  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen 
Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriguez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr.  Ole 
Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  V.  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Francsizek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 


Poland— Continue  l. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz, 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesc®. 
Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 
South  Africa: 

Mr.H.  Warington  Smyth. 
Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  E.  M.  Sjorborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  H.  von  Koch. 
Senator  H.  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  H.  Lindqvist. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht 
Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 

Dr.  Santo  A.  Dominici. 


FOURTH  SESSION— FRIDAY,  OCTOBER  31,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.35  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson, 
Secretary  of  Labor,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  has  some  announcements  to 
make. 

The  Clerk  of  the  Conference.  Your  attention  is  drawn  to  the 
rules  of  the  Navy  Building,  which  prohibit  entry  into  the  building 
after  5.30  without  special  card.  If  you  have  not  yet  obtained  a 
special  card,  you  can  obtain  one  from  the  information  bureau  on 
the  ground  floor  of  this  building. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  I  have 
received  a  letter  from  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  informing 
me  that  Mr.  Samuel  Gompers  has  been  nominated  to  represents 
at  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  standing  order  for  this  afternoon  is  the 
election  of  a  president,  three  vice  presidents,  and  a  secretary  general. 

Mr.  Fontaine  is  recognized. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France.)  As  chairman  of  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee,  I  ask  for  the  floor,  to  nominate  as  permanent  president  Mr. 
W.  B.  Wilson,  who,  as  our  provisional  president,  has  presided  with 
so  much  fairness,  dignity,  and  brilliancy  at  our  initial  sessions 
[Applause.]  Mr.  Wilson’s  past  record  and  his  devotion  to  labor  ques¬ 
tions  are  such  that  we  could  not  possibly  choose  a  better  or  more 
worthy  president,  and  I  move  that  he  be  elected  by  acclamation. 
[Applause.] 

Mr.  STUART-BUNNING  (Great  Britain).  I  second  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary  of  the  organizing  committee).  May  I 
report  that  this  motion  is  adopted. 

The  President  of  the  Conference,  Mr.  WILSON.  Members  of  the 
conference,  I  appreciate  very  highly  the  great  honor  that  you  have 
conferred  upon  the  American  people  by  selecting  one  of  its  citizens 


as  the  first  presiding  officer  of  this  conference.  1  will  ask  you  to  bear 
with  me  as  patiently  as  you  can,  under  all  the  circumstances,  in  my 
endeavor  to  guide  the  deliberations  in  such  a  manner  that  there  will 
be  no  doubt  of  the  orderly  consideration  of  each  question  as  it  arises. 
I  realize  that  there  are  variations  in  parliamentary  practice  in  the 
various  countries  of  the  world;  that  even  if  there  were  no  variations 
there  is  always  the  possibility  of  a  single  judgment  being  in  error. 
But  if  during  your  deliberations  my  judgment  should  err  in  the 
decision  of  the  parliamentary  questions  presented,  the  correction  of 
that  error  is  always  in  your  hands. 

Mankind  has  had  two  great  economic  problems  to  solve.  The 
first  of  these  problems  was  the  problem  of  production,  the  means  of 
producing  sufficient  by  which  the  material  comfort  of  the  people  of 
the  world  might  be  secured.  The  inventive  genius  of  man  has 
solved  that  question  to  a  very  great  extent.  There  is  no  longer  any 
fear  that  the  people  of  the  world  can  not  produce  sufficient  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  the  material  comfort  of  all  that  may  be  born  into  it,  provided 
there  is  ample  opportunity  to  work  under  proper  safeguards,  and 
that  the  things  that  are  produced  are  equitably  and  justly  dis¬ 
tributed. 

If  we  can  solve  the  question  of  giving  to  all  the  people  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  employment  under  proper  safeguards,  and  secure  the 
equitable  distribution  of  that  which  is  produced,  we  will  have 
achieved  the  greatest  material  ideals  that  have  been  conceived  in  the 
human  mind.  To  the  solution  of  these  problems  you  are  bringing 
your  wisdom  and  your  experience,  but  the  problems  will  not  be 
solved  as  the  result  of  the  brilliant  conceptions  of  any  one  mind. 
The  problems  of  production  and  the  other  problems  that  man  has 
solved  have  been  solved  by  the  process  of  adding  one  idea  to  another, 
building  the  structure  one  stone  upon  another  until  it  is  completed. 
That  is  the  task  now  before  the  International  Labor  Conference— 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


29 


the  task  of  finding  the  material  and  fitting  it  into  its  proper  place  in 
the  structure. 

Down  through  the  ages  the  great  masses  have  lived  in  the  shadows 
in  the  valley.  Many  of  them  now  see  the  sunlight  scintillating  on 
the  mountain  top,  with  a  narrow  pathway  winding  to  the  summit. 
They  are  eagerly  traveling  in  that  narrow  path,  frequently  in  such 
manner  as  to  result  in  their  being  crowded  off  and  crushed  upon  the 
rocks  below.  To  you  is  intrusted  the  responsibility  of  making 
the  survey  and  of  building  the  road  so  broad  and  so  easy  of  grade 
that  the  great  masses  can  move  up  the  granite  sides  of  the  mountain 
into  the  sunlight  that  God  has  created  for  all  his  children. 

No  greater  honor  can  come  to  any  man  than  to  be  selected  as  the 
presiding  officer  over  a  body  of  men  and  women  having  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  such  ideals  in  their  charge.  I  thank  you  on  behalf 
of  the  American  people,  on  behalf  of  the  American  Government,  and 
on  my  own  behalf.  I,  who  happen  for  the  moment  to  occupy  an 
official  position,  consequently  being  selected  as  the  presiding  officer 
on  this  occasion,  thank  you  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart.  [Ap¬ 
plause.) 

The  conference  will  proceed  to  the  selection  of  vice  presidents. 
Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  In  behalf  of  the  Italian 
delegation  and  others  agreeing  therewith  I  beg  to  nominate  as 
vice  president  for  all  the  Governments  represented  here  the  Right 
Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  member  of  the  British  Parliament  and  of  the  war 
cabinet.  All  who  are  acquainted  with  the  life  of  Mr.  Barnes  appre¬ 
ciate  at  their  just  value  the  sterling  qualities  which  have  lifted  him 
from  the  labor  ranks,  to  which  he  belonged  until  his  thirtieth  year, 
to  the  highest  positions  in  the  British  Government  and  during  the 
most  critical  days  of  the  empire.  All  who  participated  in  the  sessions 
of  the  labor  commission  at  the  Paris  conference  have  appreciated 
and  testified  to  his  great  authority  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  fairness  and 
justice  with  which  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes  met  every  question. 
I  do  not  believe  a  more  worthy  nominee  could  be  proposed  to  the 
conference,  and  therefore,  in  behalf  of  the  Government  representa¬ 
tives,  of  whom  I  am  spokesman,  and  especially  in  behalf  of  the  Italian 
delegation,  I  have  the  honor  to  place  him  in  nomination  as  vice 
president  for  the  Governments  at  the  labor  conference. 

Allow  me  to  add  a  word.  This  motion  is  made  in  the  name  of  all 
the  Governments’  representatives  in  this  conference  of  whom  I  am 
spokesman  and  of  whom  I  am  the  interpreter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Mahaim,  the  delegate  from  Belgium, 
is  recognized. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  second  the 
motion  of  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches,  and  it  is  peculiarly  a  pleasure 
for  me  in  seconding  this  motion  to  render  in  the  name  of  the  Belgian 
Government  special  homage  to  Great  Britain,  to  whom  Belgium  is 
bound  by  the  imperishable  ties'of  gratitude. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  the  appointment  of  the 
Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes  as  vice  president  will  be  recorded  as  unani¬ 
mous.  I  hear  none,  and  it  is  so  recorded.  [Applause.] 

You  will  pardon  the  Chair  if  at  times  he  fails  to  wait  for  a  transla¬ 
tion. 

The  secretary  will  announce  the  nomination  of  the  employers. 

Mr.  BUTLER  (secretary'  of  the  organizing  committee).  I  have 
received  a  nomination  of  the  employers’  group  of  Mr.  Jules  Carlier,  of 
Belgium,  as  their  nominee  for  vice  president. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  Mr.  Jules  Carlier  will  be 
recorded  as  the  unanimous  choice  of  the  conference  for  vice  president. 
(Applause.] 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  In  behalf  of  the  labor  delegation  I 
nominate  Mr.  Jouhaux  to  the  vice  presidency  of  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  Mr.  Jouhaux  will  be 
named  as  the  unanimous  choice  of  the  conference  for  vice  president. 
[Applause.] 

I  hear  no  objection  in  either  case,  and  they  will  be  recorded  as 
the  unanimous  choice  of  the  conference.  [Applause.] 


The  next  standing  order  is  the  selection  of  a  secretary  general . 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Since  April  14,  1919,  Mr.  Butler,  a 
director  at  the  English  Ministry  of  Labor,  has  served,  first,  as  secre¬ 
tary  of  the  committee  on  organization,  and  later  as  provisional  secre¬ 
tary  general  to  this  conference.  Mr.  Butler  has  exhibited  in  his  serv¬ 
ices  a  devotion  for  which  we  are  all  deeply  grateful  to  him.  The 
difficulties  in  organizing  an  entirely  new  conference  such  as  this 
were  very  great.  There  were  no  precedents  to  serve  as  guides.  It 
had_  to  be  worked  out  in  the  midst  of  considerable  embarrassment. 
But  everything  was  ready  in  time.  I  move  that  Mr.  Butler  be 
congratulated,  and  that  we  show  our  indebtedness  to  him  by  electing 
him  permanent  secretary  general  of  this  assembly. 

Dr.  SULZER  (Switzerland).  Mr.  Chairman,  ladies,  and  gentle¬ 
men,  as  a  member  of  the  organizing  committee,  having  witnessed 
the  splendid  work  of  Mr.  Butler,  I  cordially  second  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Fontaine. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  Mr.  Butler  will  be  re¬ 
corded  as  the  unanimous  choice  of  the  conference  for  secretary  gen¬ 
eral  during  this  conference.  [Applause.] 

It  is  so  recorded.  [Applause.] 

The  next  standing  order  is  the  selection  of  a  commission  of  selec¬ 
tion. 

The  secretary  will  announce  the  nominees. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  nominees  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  delegates  are  as  follows: 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  Great  Britain 
Dr.  Felipe  Espil,  Argentina. 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine,  France. 

Mr.  E.  Mahaim,  Belgium. 

Mr.  S.  Neumann,  Denmark. 

Mr.  M.  Oka,  Japan. 

The  twelfth  place  is  left  vacant  for  the  German  nominee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  recognizes  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  There  is  one  delegate 
to  enter  upon  the  list  of  members  of  the  committee  of  selection 
which  has  just  been  read,  to  take  the  place  of  Mr.  Charles  Spinka, 
who  had  been  chosen  as  delegate  for  Czecho-Slovakia,  Poland,  and 
other  powers  of  western  Europe.  The  delegate  now  chosen  is  Mr. 
Sokal.  I  beg  that  you  will  kindly  make  due  note  of  this  and  substi¬ 
tute  the  one  name  for  the  other. 

At  the  same  time  I  would  like  to  express  the  desire  that,  as  is  cus¬ 
tomary,  all  lists  be  made  up  in  alphabetical  order,  either  by 
countries  or  groups  of  countries. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  ought  to  explain,  perhaps,  that 
the  order  was  the  alphabetical  order  of  the  names  of  the  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  these  names  are  the  selection  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  delegates  they  become  members  of  the  committee  of  selec¬ 
tion  without  further  action  on  the  part  of  the  conference. 

TheSECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  received  a  comm  unication 
from  the  employers’  group  which  states  that  their  representatives 
will  be  from  France,  Czecho-Slovakia,  Great  Britain,  Italy,  or  Switzer¬ 
land,  Japan,  Spain.  I  have  not  received  any  further  information 
as  to  whether  the  delegate  from  Italy  or  the  delegate  from  Switzer¬ 
land  will  take  his  place  on  the  commission.  . 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France — interrupting  the  interpreter).  I  ask 
for  the  floor.  It  seems  from  the  explanations  furnished  by  the 
president  that  the  list  of  members  composing  the  committee  of  selec¬ 
tion  would  not  be  ratified  by  the  vote  of  the  conference,  because  this 
list  is  submitted  by  the  Government  delegates.  I  do  not  think  this 
distinction  between  Government  delegates  and  other  delegates 
should  be  permitted.  We  are  here  in  the  same  capacity,  as  delegates, 
with  the  same  rights  and  the  same  prerogatives.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  say,  for  the  information  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  and  Mr.  Jouhaux,  that  no  distinction  was  intended  to  be  made 
by  me  as  between  the  selection  of  the  Government  delegates  and  the 
selection  of  the  employers’  and  the  workers’  delegates.  Under 


Dr.  di  Palma  Castlglione,  Italy. 

Mr.  Adolfo  G.  Posada,  Spain. 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson,  Canada. 
Mr.  Charles  Spinka,  Czecho-Slovakia. 
Dr.  Hans  Sulzer,  Switzerland. 


30 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


article  7,  found  on  page  3  of  the  standing  orders,  the  statement  is 
made: 

The  members  of  the  commission  of  selection  shall  be  appointed  respectively  by  the 
Government  delegates,  the  employers’  delegates,  and  the  workers’  delegates,  not 
more  than  one  in  each  class  belonging  to  the  same  country. 

Therefore,  the  conference  does  not  pass  upon  the  selection  of  these 
representatives  in  either  group,  and  they  are  simply  being  read  from 
the  secretary’s  desk  for  the  information  of  the  conference. 

The  secretary  will  read  the  workers’  nominees. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  nominations  received  from 
the  workers’  group  of  delegates  are  as  follows: 

Mr.  Mertens,  Belgium.  Mr.  Oudegeest,  Netherlands. 

Mr.  Jouhaux,  France.  Mr.  Caballero,  Spain. 

Mr.  Stuart-Bunning,  Great  Britain.  Mr.  Lindqvist,  Sweden. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  conference  will  observe  that  the  em¬ 
ployers  have  simply  named  the  countries  from  which  their  delegates 
are  to  be  named,  but  have  not  named  the  delegates.  May  I  ask  the 
employers  to  furnish  for  the  information  of  the  conference  the  names 
of  their  delegates  on  the  committee  at  the  earliest  opportunity? 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  Mr.  President,  this  is  the  reason  why 
the  name  is  not  given.  There  is  but  one  employers’  delegate  from 
each  country,  and,  therefore,  that  one  employers’  delegate  would  be 
the  candidate. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  In  the  list  which  I  have  received 
it  states  that  one  representative  should  be  from  Italy  or  Switzerland. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  The  explanation  is  this:  The  first 
person  upon  the  list  is  the  delegate  from  Italy,  but  this  delegate  is 
not  present,  and  while  waiting  for  him  to  take  his  place,  the  delegate 
from  Switzerland  can  act  for  him,  with  the  understanding  that  he 
is  to  withdraw  when  his  colleague  from  Italy  comes. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  I  ask  for  the  floor. 
The  Italian  industrial  delegate  is  here.  Perhaps  he  is  not  present  in 
the  hall,  but  he  is  now  in  Washington. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  I  understand  the  statement  that  has-been 
made,  the  employers’  delegate  from  Italy  will  act  if  he  is  here;  that 
if  he  is  not  here  the  employers’  delegate  from  Switzerland  will  act. 
It  has  been  stated  by  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  that  the  Italian 
employers’  delegate  is  here,  and  consequently  he  will  act. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  names  of  the  employers’ 
representatives  on  the  commission  will  accordingly  be  as  follows: 


As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands.  [Show  of 
hands.] 

Down.  Those  opposed,  raise  their  right  hands. 

The  motion  is  carried. 

The  secretary  general  desires  to  make  an  announcement. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  If  it  is  desired  that  the  commis¬ 
sion  of  selection  should  meet  to-morrow,  may  I  suggest  that  they 
should  remain  in  this  room  to  settle  the  time  of  their  meeting. 

[Whereupon,  at  3.40  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Monday,  November  3,  1919,  at  10.30  a.  m.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Mr.  Francis  Hodacz,  of  Czecho-Slovakia. 
Mr.  Louis  Guerin,  of  France. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks,  of  Great  Britain. 


Mr.  Ferdinando  Quartieri,  of  Italy. 
Mr.  Sanji  Muto,  of  Japan. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala,  of  Spain. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  L&vie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Dr.  P.  Carrera  Justiz. 

Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  C.  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  Francis  Hodacz. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  J.  Cueva  Garcia. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  G u<5rin. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuz&ne. 

Guatemala: 

Mr.  F.  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  A.  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  C.  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray, 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 


Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglioni  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  C.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  V.  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Francsizek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos4  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse 
South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  E.  M  Sjorborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 

Dr.  Santos  A.  Doininici. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Your  next  standing  order  is  the  report  of 
the  committee  on  credentials.  Is  the  committee  on  credentials 
prepared  to  report? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  The  committee 
on  credentials  has  not  yet  been  able  to  hold  a  meeting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  seem  to  have  exhausted  the  provisional 
order  of  business,  and  the  suggestion  is  made  that  the  committee  on 
selection  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  of  considering  the  arrange¬ 
ment  of  the  work,  the  committees  that  are  to  be  selected  for  the 
handling  of  the  work,  and  the  personnel  of  the  committees.  Ad¬ 
journment  should  be  taken  to  some  later  time  to  give  the  committee 
on  selection  opportunity  to  work.  What  is  the  pleasure  of  the 
conference? 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  move  that  we  do  now  adjourn  until 
Monday  next — at  10.30  Monday  morning. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  that  we  do  now  adjourn 
until  10.30  Monday  morning. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


31 


FIFTH  SESSION— MONDAY,  NOVEMBER  3,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  10.40  o’clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B. 
Wilson,  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Your  secretary  will  make  some  announce¬ 
ments. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  just  wish  to  draw  attention 
to  a  mistake  in  the  mimeographed  list  of  the  committee  of  selection. 
Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  is  put  down  as  chairman;  it  should  have 
been  Mr.  Fontaine.  I  should  also  like  to  announce  that  I  have  now 
received  a  large  number  of  additional  copies,  both  in  English  and 
French,  of  the  reports  upon  the  eight-hour  day  and  the  other  ques¬ 
tions  of  the  agenda.  These  copies  have  been  delayed  owing  to  a 
strike,  and  I  have  only  received  them  this  morning.  If  delegates 
or  the  secretaries  of  delegations  will  kindly  inform  Capt.  Abraham 
or  the  information  office  of  the  number  of  copies  which  they  require, 
I  will  have  them  distributed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  labor  representative  of  the  Polish 
delegation  has  submitted  an  explanation  of  his  vote  or  absence  of 
vote  on  the  admission  of  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates.  It 
will  be  read  for  the  information  of  the  conference. 

The  Clerk.  This  is  the  declaration  of  the  workmen’s  delegate 
in  the  Polish  delegation,  explaining  why  he  abstained  from  voting 
on  the  question  of  the  admission  of  the  German  delegation  to  the 
conference.  He  says  that  the  age-long  oppression  by  Germany  has 
had  a  deplorable  effect  on  the  organization  of  the  workmen’s  move¬ 
ment  in  Poland.  The  World  War  has  completely  ruined  the  work¬ 
ing  class.  Because  the  desire  for  a  peace  based  on  justice  is  felt 
nowhere  more  than  by  themselves  the  Polish  working  class  is 
more  anxious  than  any  other  to  settle  the  national  differences  by 
international  agreement.  Nevertheless,  there  being  the  present 
situation  in  Polish  territory,  which  is  inhabited  by  the  Polish  work¬ 
ing  population  and  occupied  by  the  German  Government,  the 
Polish  working  class,  without  any  party  differences,  has  protested 
and  still  protests  against  Prussian  oppression.  In  consequence  of 
these  considerations,  as  Polish  workingmen’s  delegate,  he  was  unable 
to  take  part  in  the  vote  regarding  the  admission  of  the  Germans  to 
the  conference.  However,  not  wishing  to  give  them  any  excuse 
for  neglecting  the  resolutions  to  be  adopted  by  the  conference,  which 
might  be  given  were  they  absent  from  it,  he  abstained  from  voting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  order  of  business  this  morning  is  the 
report  of  the  committee  of  selection.  Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  The  committee  of  selection  proposes 
to  the  conference  the  appointment  of  the  members  of  two  committees, 
and  offers  a  resolution  suggesting  the  appointment  of  a  third  commit¬ 
tee,  for  which  no  names  will  be  proposed  at  to-day’s  meeting. 

The  first  committee  whose  appointment  has  been  considered  by  the 
committee  of  selection  is  a  committee  on  standing  orders.  The 
committee  of  selection  has  consulted  the  various  groups  as  to  the 
names  to  be  proposed  for  this  committee,  which  it  proposes  to  limit 
to  nine  members.  You  have  before  you  the  names  of  the  members 
proposed  by  the  different  groups.  They  are  as  follows: 

Mr.  Mahaim,  Belgium.  Mr.  Kershaw,  India. 

Mr.  Draper,  Canada.  Mr.  Verkade,  Netherlands. 

Mr.  Tayerle.  Czecho-Slovakia  Viscount  de  Eza,  Spain. 

Mr.  Goineau,  France.  Mr.  Ilg,  Switzerland. 

Mr  Miall,  Great  Britain. 

A  second  resolution  concerns  the  appointment  of  a  committee  in 
charge  of  the  examination  of  applications  for  admission.  These 
applications  consist  at  the  present  moment  of  those  made  by  Finland 
and  Luxemburg;  and  the  Dominican  Republic  as  well,  since  the 
delegate  from  the  Dominican  Republic  has  brought  his  credentials 
here.  The  motion  by  the  delegate  from  Ecuador  to  admit  Mexico 
to  membership  in  the  conference  will  likewise  be  referred  to  this 
committee. 

For  this  committee  we  suggest  four  names,  and  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Gompers  can  not  take  his  seat  at  present  we  suggest  provi¬ 


sionally  the  name  of  Mr.  Joshi  (India)  for  one  of  the  places.  They 
are  as  follows: 

Mr.  Fraipont,  Belgium. 

Mr.  Rowell,  Canada. 

Mr.  Collinet,  France. 

Mr.  Fontaine,  France. 

Finally,  the  committee  of  selection  has  thought  it  best  to  decide 
immediately  upon  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  examine  into 
the  questions  of  unemployment.  If  you  will  refer  to  the  agenda 
which  has  been  prepared  by  the  Peace  Conference,  you  will  see  that 
among  the  questions  relating  to  unemployment  there  is  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  immigration  and  emigration;  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  the 
committee  on  selection,  which  does  not  suggest  any  names  this 
morning  for  the  commission  on  unemployment,  does  nevertheless 
offer  a  resolution.  It  would  like  to  have  referred  to  this  commission 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  relating  to  the  situation  of  workmen  in 
enemy  countries  and  of  workmen  from  enemy  countries  in  those 
countries  which  are  signers  of  the  peace  treaty.  This  resolution  is 
referred  to  you  by  the  Supreme  Council.  Consequently  it  is  in  the 
regular  order  of  business,  and  the  sense  of  the  resolution  which  is 
submitted  to  you  by  the  committee  of  selection  is  that  the  commis¬ 
sion  on  unemployment  is  expressly  called  upon  to  make  a  report  and 
to  frame  a  motion  on  the  resolution  which  has  been  referred  to  us 
by  the  Supreme  Council. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  report  of  the  committee  of  selection  is 
before  you,  and  the  question  will  recur  upon  the  first  resolution. 

If  there  is  no  debate,  the  question  will  be  put  on  the  adoption  of 
the  first  resolution  as  read.  As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the 
first  resolution  as  read  will  signify  the  same  by  raising  their  right 
hands  and  keeping  them  raised  until  counted  by  the  secretary. 

[The  secretary  then  counted  the  votes  of  those  in  favor.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  to  the  resolution  will  raise  their  right  hands 
and  keep  them  raised  until  counted  by  the  secretary.  The  resolu¬ 
tion  is  agreed  to  unanimously. 

The  question  now  recurs  upon  the  second  resolution.  If  there  is  no 
debate  the  question  will  be  put.  As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of 
the  second  resolution  as  read  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted  by  the  secretary. 

[The  secretary  then  counted  the  votes  of  those  in  favor.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands.  The  resolu¬ 
tion  is  agreed  to  unanimously. 

The  question  now  recurs  upon  the  third  paragraph  or  proposition 
of  the  committee.  If  there  is  no  debate  the  question  will  be  put. 
As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  third  resolution  will  signify  by 
raising  their  right  hands  and  keeping  them  raised  until  counted. 

[The  secretary  then  counted  the  votes  of  those  in  favor.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands.  The  resolu¬ 
tion  is  agreed  to  unanimously. 

The  delegate  from  Spain  is  recognized. 

Viscount  de  EZA  (Spain).  At  the  meeting  held  in  private  yes¬ 
terday  with  a  few  delegates  from  other  nations,  we  agreed  that  we 
were  in  complete  harmony  upon  the  motion  which  was  laid  before 
us  by  the  committee  of  selection  on  the  subject  of  the  problems  of 
unemployment.  We  believe  in  fact  that  it  is  a  perfectly  acceptable 
proposition  which  has  been  submitted  to  us  by  the  committee  of 
selection.  So  it  was  necessary  to  accept  it  in  the  mam.  Dut  we 
think  there  are  so  many  problems  connected  with  the  general  prob¬ 
lem  of  unemployment  that  we  believe  we  are  expressing  the  general 
opinion  of  this  conference  in  proposing  to  you  to  enlarge  somewhat 
the  scope  of  the  motion  offered  by  the  committee  of  selection. 

This  committee  has  told  us  that  it  was  necessary  to  appoint  a 
commission  to  study  the  methods  of  preventing  unemployment  and 
to  suggest  remedies.  We  agree  perfectly  on  this  point,  but  in  order 
that  the  commission  may  not  find  itself  somewhat  embarrassed  in 


Mr.  Joshi  (acting  as  provisional  substitute 
for  Mr.  Gompers). 

Mr.  Baldesi,  Italy. 


32 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


view  of  the  duties  intrusted  tc  :t  by  the  Peace  Conference,  we  said 
that  the  commission  should  at  the  same  time  study  the  social,  legal, 
and  economic  questions.  We  desire  that  this  problem  of  unemploy¬ 
ment  should  be  studied  in  its  various  aspects,  economic,  social,  and 
legal.  That  is  the  only  way  to  study  it  practically.  That  is  our 
reason  for  proposing  the  use  of  general  terms  which  in  no  wise  en¬ 
danger  the  free  expression  of  opinion  on  anybody’s  part,  and  which 
leave  the  whole  range  of  the  question  completely  under  the  juris¬ 
diction  of  the  commission  which  is  to  be  appointed.  I  have  accepted 
the  honor  to  be  the  spokesman  for  the  authors  of  this  resolution,  a 
draft  of  which  was  made  yesterday  evening,  in  an  exclusively  con¬ 
fidential  and  personal  way.  We  propose  that  the  commission  to  be 
appointed  shall  be  composed  of  fifteen  members  instead  of  nine.  As 
you  understand,  this  is  not  an  absolutely  essential  question,  only 
the  subject  is  so  important  that  this  commission  ought  to  include  a 
representative  from  all  the  countries  interested  in  these  problems, 
and  that  we  ought  to  be  granted  a  little  more  time,  for  instance  until 
next  Monday,  in  order  not  to  hurry  the  work  of  the  commission. 

We  want  to  support  the  motion  of  the  committee  of  selection,  and 
only  add  a  few  words  which  merely  broaden  the  thought  which,  we 
believe,  inspired  the  appointment  of  this  commission. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Sokal,  of  the  Polish  delegation,  is  recog¬ 
nized. 

Mr.  SOKAL  (Poland).  The  motion  made  by  the  Spanish  dele¬ 
gation  is  practically  the  motion  which  was  adopted  by  the  com¬ 
mittee  of  selection. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  did  not  understand  that  the  dele¬ 
gate  from  Spain  had  moved  an  amendment,  but  had  simply  made  as 
suggestion  for  the  consideration  of  the  committee  of  selection. 

Mr.  Fontaine  is  recognized. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  desire  to  remind  our  colleagues 
that  they  have  already  voted  on  the  resolution,  and  that  conse¬ 
quently  we  have  nothing  more  to  add  to  it.  Now,  the  interpretation 
of  Mr.  de  Eza  conforms  to  that  of  the  organizing  committee,  and  con¬ 
sequently  it  is  useless,  it  seems  to  me,  to  make  an  amendment 
reaffirming  it.  I  merely  desire  to  call  Mr.  de  Eza’s  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  committee  of  selection  has  not  yet  indicated  what  is 
to  be  the  number  of  members  of  this  commission.  That  is  a  question 
which  is  still  in  reserve. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Nolens,  the  delegate  from  the  Nether¬ 
lands,  is  recognized. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  It  seems  to  me  also  that  what  is 
proposed  by  the  delegate  from  Spain  is  only  a  fuller  statement  of 
what  the  committee  of  selection  has  proposed.  It  seems  to  me  that 
it  is  better  to  intrust  the  whole  proposition  as  stated  in  a  few  words 
to  the  discretion  of  the  commission  which  will  be  named. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  It  has  already  been  voted  upon;  there 
is  nothing  further  to  be  said. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Others  are  talking  about  it,  and 
I  shall  also  until  the  president  closes  the  debate. 

When  I  read  “Questions  relating  to  the  methods  of  preventing 
unemployment  and  remedying  its  consequences  *  *  *”  it  is  a 
clear  indication  of  a  legal,  social,  and  economic  point  of  view. 

In  the  second  place,  it  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President,  now  that  we 
are  talking  for  the  first  time  of  appointing  numerous  commissions, 
that  it  is  better  not  to  make  them  too  large  in  number,  because 
otherwise  each  commission  would  finally  become  a  general  conference 
and  the  work  would  not  proceed  so  swiftly.  Hence  I  advise  the 
Spanish  delegate  to  withdraw  his  amendment  and  suggest  that  we 
finish  what  we  have  begun. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  They  will  not  take  into  account  that 
the  motion  has  been  voted  upon. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Viscount  de  Eza,  the  delegate  of  Spain,  is 
recognized  by  courtesy  of  the  conference. 

Viscount  de  EZA  (Spain).  I  was  saying,  Mr.  Delegate,  that  I  agree 
fully  with  Mr.  Fontaine.  He  is  right.  I  am  out  of  order;  therefore 
I  can  not  speak.  But  my  excuse  was  that  I  did  not  believe  it  was 
my  duty  to  offer  the  motion.  I  thought  it  bad  been  made  and  that 
as  it  was  about  to  be  read  I  ought  to  take  the  floor  to  support  it. 


That  was  the  misunderstanding.  But  it  does  not  matter,  since  Mr. 
Fontaine  says  I  must  withdraw  it;  I  have  only  to  withdraw  the 
motion.  Consequently,  when  we  speak  of  the  idea  of  preventing 
unemployment  it  is  understood  that  we  will  preserve  whatever  has 
a  bearing  upon  the  economic  and  legal  aspects  of  it.  I  am  in  per¬ 
fect  sympathy  with  that,  and  I  am  delighted  to  accede  to  Mr.  Fon¬ 
taine’s  wish.  Only,  as  for  the  question  of  15  members  and  the 
question  of  the  delay  given  to  the  commission.  I  was  speaking  by 
way  of  explanation,  that  is  all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Your  program  for  the  day  has  been  ex¬ 
hausted.  What  is  the  further  pleasure  of  the  conference?  Mr. 
Fontaine,  delegate  from  France. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  move  to  fix  the  next  meeting  for 
to-morrow,  Tuesday,  at  half  past  2.  From  conversations  which  I 
had  yesterday  with  a  great  many  employers  and  workmen.  I  believe 
that  if  we  fix  to-morrow’s  session  for  half  past  2,  our  colleagues,  the 
employers  and  workmen,  will  then  be  in  a  position  to  take  up 
the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  8-hour  day,  the  outcome  of 
which  discussion  will  be  a  decision  as  to  whether  or  not  a  commission 
shall  be  appointed,  and  in  a  general  way  how  the  continuation  of 
the  discussion  is  to  be  carried  on. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  is  recognized. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  .(Italy).  Mr.  President  and 
gentlemen,  all  those  who  are  at  all  accustomed  to  conferences 
know  as  well  as  I  that  at  the  beginning  matters  move  somewhat 
slowly  and  that  the  work  accumulates  at  the  end.  I  agree  perfectly 
with  Mr.  Fontaine  that  the  next  meeting  should  be  at  half  past  2 
to-morrow.  I  can  not,  however,  refrain  from  reminding  you  that 
we  have  just  had  two  whole  days’  vacation.  I  will  not  say  that 
they  were  days  of  idleness,  since  talks  and  meetings  certainly  took 
place;  but  after  all,  for  two  days  there  has  been  no  session  of  the 
conference,  and  to-day’s  meeting  was  very  short.  Now  I  happened 
to  converse  yesterday  with  several  of  our  colleagues,  who  made  the 
same  remark  that  I  am  now  making.  They  wondered,  as  I  myself 
wonder,  whether  it  is  not  well  to  request  the  conference  to  be  kind 
enough  to  hasten  its  labors  as  far  as  possible  on  these  first  few  days, 
in  order  that  we  may  not  come  to  the  end  of  the  month  without 
having  completed  our  task.  So  far  as  the  Italian  delegation  is  con¬ 
cerned,  it  is  important  to  all  its  members  that  they  return  to  Europe 
at  the  beginning  of  December,  if  not  at  the  end  of  November.  For 
these  reasons,  I  take  the  liberty  of  requesting  that,  without  taking 
double  mouthfuls,  which  would  be  likely  to  choke  us,  we  try  if 
possible  to  get  on  a  little  faster  with  our  work. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  made  by 
Mr.  Fontaine  that  we  adjourn  until  2.30  to-morrow  afternoon.  Be¬ 
fore  voting  on  that  question,  there  are  some  announcements  to  be 
made. 

The  Clerk.  I  have  to  announce  on  behalf  of  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches  that  there  will  be  a  meeting  of  Government  delegates  this 
afternoon  at  5  o’clock  in  room  1022  in  the  Navy  Building. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  are  now  asked  to  vote  on  the  adjourn¬ 
ment  until  half  past  2  to-morrow.  As  many  as  favor  adjournment 
until  half  past  2  to-morrow  afternoon  will  raise  their  right  hands  and 
keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[The  secretary  counted  the  votes  of  those  in  favor.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands.  Agreed  to 
unanimously.  The  conference  is  adjourned  until  2.30  to-morrow 
afternoon. 

[Whereupon,  at  11.30  o’clock  a.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken 
to  Tuesday,  November  4,  1919,  at  2.30  p.  m.] 


The  following  delegates  were 

Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier.. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 


present: 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson) 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


33 


China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Uructa. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armcntero  y  Cardenas 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz 
Mr.  Luis  Rosain  y  de  los  Reyes 
Czechoslovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  hazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Lgon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  A.  J.  C.  Ross  (substitute  for  Mr. 

D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart- Bunning. 


Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 

Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Haiti: 

Mr.  Ch.  Moravia. 

India: 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  Di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 


Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon: 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos<5  Barbosa. 


Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregolre  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykoviteh  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 


SIXTH  SESSION— TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER  4,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.35  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson,  presi¬ 
dent  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Your  secretary  will  read  some  correspondence 
and  make  some  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  received  the  following 
letter  from  the  secretary  of  the  International  Congress  of  Working 
Women: 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  herewith  a  copy  of  the  resolution  passed 
by  the  International  Congress  of  Working  Women,  calling  for  an  international  8-hour 
day  and  44-hour  week,  with  certain  other  special  provisions. 

In  behalf  of  the  International  Congress  of  Working  Women  it  is  my  privilege  to 
ask  you  to  lay  before  the  International  Labor  Conference  of  the  League  of  Nations 
for  their  consideration  and,  we  hope,  favorable  action,  this  expression  of  the  views 
of  the  delegated  representatives  of  the  working  women  of  13  of  the  nations  signatory 
to  the  League  of  Nations  covenant. 

The  following  is  the  resolution: 

The  first  International  Congress  of  Working  Women  requests  the  first  International 
Congress  of  Labor  of  the  League  of  Nations  that  an  international  convention  establish: 

(1)  For  all  workers  a  maximum  8-hour  day  and  44-hour  week. 

(2)  That  the  weekly  rest  period  shall  have  an  uninterrupted  duration  of  at  least 
one  day  and  a  half. 

(3)  That  in  continuous  industries  a  minimum  rest  period  of  one-half  hour  shall  be 
accorded  in  each  8-hour  shift. 

I  have  received  the  following  telegram  dated  November  3.  This 
is  a  translation. 

To  the  Labor  Conference,  Washington: 

The  German  workers,  through  their  labor  organization,  welcome  the  decision  of  the 
International  Labor  Conference  at  Washington,  whereby  representatives  of  Germany 
are  admitted  to  the  conference  with  equal  rights  and  obligations.  The  speedy  de¬ 
parture  of  our  representatives  is  unfortunately  delayed  by  reason  of  difficulty  in 
obtaining  passages.  If  these  difficulties  can  be  overcome,  the  German  representatives 
will  be  glad  to  cooperate  in  the  important  work  of  the  conference  in  the  interests  of 
the  workers  of  all  countries. 

That  telegram  is  signed  by  the  General  Federation  of  German 
Trades-Unions,  the  Federation  of  Christian  Trades-Unions  of  Ger¬ 
many,  and  the  Federation  of  German  Trades-Unions. 

The  CLERK.  1  have  to  announce  that  Mr.  Sjoborg,  Swedish 
Government  delegate,  is  unable  by  reason  of  illness  to  attend  and 
will  be  represented  by  Dr.  Gunnar  Huss,  chief  of  the  Swedish  Labor 
Bureau. 


I  also  have  to  announce  that  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning  is  unable  to 
attend  and  is  represented  by  Mr.  Tom  Shaw. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  committee  of  selection  expects  shortly 
to  be  able  to  report  several  resolutions  dealing  with  the  appointment 
of  committees  for  various  purposes.  They  have  not  yet  quite 
determined  the  personnel  of  those  committees,  and  consequently 
will  not  be  ready  to  report  for  a  short  time.  Without  objection, 
therefore,  the  conference  will  proceed  to  the  general  discussion  of 
the  first  item  of  the  agenda,  the  eight-hour  day.  I  shall  ask  if  you 
desire  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee  read  on  that  question? 
Mr.  Barnes,  British  delegate. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentle¬ 
men,  we  have  now  reached  an  item  which  the  organizing  committee, 
in  their  report,  have  described  as  the  most  important  item  of  our 
program,  and  I  think  that  that  description  of  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  is  perfectly  right.  In  some  respects,  at  all  events,  the  eight- 
hour  day  has  figured  more  and  lingered  longer  in  the  minds  of  the 
workers  of  the  world  than  any  other  industrial  topic;  and  while  there 
has  been  a  great  deal  of  agitation  in  its  favor  on  the  part  of  the  work¬ 
ers,  and,  I  am  glad  to  add,  a  great  deal  of  experimentation  with  its 
working  on  the  part  of  some  employers,  there  has  also  been  a 
changed  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  public  generally  with  regard  to 
it,  thus  corresponding  to  the  changed  attitude  in  regard  to  labor 
questions  generally.  Labor,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  ceasing  to  be  regarded 
as  a  commodity  and  is  being  thought  of  more  and  more  in  terms  of 
sentient  human  beings.  Therefore  a  good  deal  haaalready  been  done 
in  the  way  of  shortening  hours  of  labor.  In  some  of  the  more  ad¬ 
vanced  countries  represented  at  this  conference  the  eight-hour  day 
is  already  an  accomplished  fact.  The  principle  has  been  generally 
conceded  that  labor  is  entitled  to  leisure,  that  the  workers  are  entitled 
to  live  their  lives  outside  of  the  workshop,  are  entitled  outside  of 
working  hours  to  time  for  recreation,  for  education,  and  for  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  social  and  family  duties. 

What  we  have  to  do  at  this  conference  is  to  exchange  and  regularize 
the  application  of  the  principle,  with  due  regard  always  to  the  differ¬ 
ence  in  climatic  conditions  of  the  various  countries  and  also  with 
due  regard  to  the  limitations  imposed  upon  us  by  the  terms  of  the 
document  under  which  we  are  meeting. 


146865°— 20 - 3 


34 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


We  can  not  do  less  at  this  conference  than  adopt  a  convention,  first, 
for  a  shorter  working  day.  To  do  less  than  that  would  be  to  break 
faith  with  labor.  Workers  throughout  the  war  kept  to  their  work, 
in  the  hope  and  belief  that  shorter  working  hours  would  be  made 
general  after  the  war.  They  were  promised  that  a  shorter  working 
day  would  be  brought  in  after  the  war,  and  the  Governments  are  now 
expected  to  fulfill  the  bond.  Speaking  on  behalf  of  the  British  Gov¬ 
ernment,  I  can  say  that  there  is  every  desire  to  'ulfill  all  its  obliga¬ 
tions.  An  eight-hours-a-day  Dill  has  as  a  matter  of  fact  been  already 
prepared.  That  bill  in  its  terms  is  a  good  deal  different  from  the 
bill  which  has  been  prepared  for  our  consideration.  It  will  possibly 
be  the  duty  of  my  colleague  or  myself,  when  we  come  to  a  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  different  clauses,  to  propose  certain  amendments  to  the 
bill  which  has  been  prepared  for  us,  but  the  British  Government 
intend  to  carry  out  that  bill  and  thereby  carry  out  their  promises. 

But  now,  having  said  so  much  of  what  is  due  to  labor,  let  me  by 
way  of  another  word  of  preface  just  say  something  of  what  in  my 
opinion  is  due  from  labor.  There  is,  in  my  opinion,  due  from  labor 
whole-hearted  cooperation  in  the  largest  possible  production  of  goods. 
We  have  just  gone  through  five  years  of  destruction.  The  accumu¬ 
lated  wealth  of  generations  has  been  blown  from  the  cannon’s 
mouth,  and  what  the  world  needs  now  above  everything  else  for  re¬ 
construction  is  the  most  ample  production  of  goods  so  as  to  make 
good  the  waste  of  war. 

But  I  submit,  fellow  delegates,  that  the  way  to  get  that  is  not  by 
long  hours  of  labor;  still  less  is  it  by  denunciatory  speeches  on  the 
part  of  some,  no  matter  how  highly  placed  they  may  be,  against  this 
or  that  class  or  against  this  or  that  theory.  The  way  to  get  it,  and 
the  only  way  to  get  it,  is  by  a  better  organization  of  industry,  by 
humanizing  the  conditions  of  labor.  I  believe  by  carrying  out 
those  two  principles  we  can  get  labor  to  put  its  back  into  its  work 
while  it  is  at  it.  I  hope  it  will;  I  believe  it  will;  and  I  believe 
further  that  labor,  as  well  as  other  classes  in  the  community,  would 
benefit  thereby.  [Applause.] 

And,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  the  proposition  is  thus  stated — and  I 
hope  I  have  fairly  stated  it — there  are  several  general  considera¬ 
tions  which  leap  to  the  mind  and  which  1  should  like  to  submit  to 
the  conference  before  coming  to  an  examination  of  the  actual  draft 
convention.  The  first  is  this:  That  it  is  not  a  mere  basic  8- 
hour  law  or  8-hour  rule  with  additional  pay  for  additional 
hours  of  work  that  we  are  after.  That  would  not  give  us  what  we 
want.  What  we  want  is  leisure,  and  we  must  therefore  keep  that  in 
mind  all  the  time.  We  are  after  leisure  rather  than  pay.  More¬ 
over,  even  if  we  arranged  for  additional  pay  to  be  made  to  the  work¬ 
ers  for  additional  time  (inasmuch  as  wages,  after  all,  tend  to  certain 
levels,  determined  by  many  things  apart  from  the  hours  of  labor), 
the  additional  pay  would  tend  to  disappear  from  the  very  moment 
it  began  to  be  paid.  Therefore  what  1  want  to  impress  upon  the 
conference  in  the  first  place  is  that  we  are  now  discussing  how  to 
get  more  leisure  for  workers  and  not  how  to  get  more  pay  for  them. 

In  the  second  place,  we  must  frame  our  convention  or  recommenda¬ 
tion  so  as  to  make  it  elastic  enough  to  meet  the  needs  of  those  men, 
and  at  the  same  time  rigid  enough  to  get  something  like  uniformity 
in  its  application.  Fire,  flood,  acts  of  God  of  any  kind — all  these 
have  to  be  specifically  provided  for.  There  are  other  things  on  the 
margin  not  so  clear  or  obvious  which  must  be  left  to  the  discretion  of 
some  authority.  But  there  again  I  want  to  point  out  that  there  is 
some  little  danger,  inasmuch  as  authorities  differ  in  efficiency. 
They  will  be  lax  here  and  rigid  there,  and  therefore,  uniformity,  or 
anything  like  uniformity,  in  a  convention  is  absolutely  impossible 
unless — even  if  you  leave  discretion  to  authorities — that  discretion  is 
in  turn  somehow  or  other  safeguarded  and  limited.  And  in  the 
third  place  I  should  adopt  the  principle  of  a  48-hour  week  instead 
of  an  8-hour  day.  That  is  to  say,  I  should  adopt  the  principle 
of  averages.  It  is  true  that  an  8-hour  day,  if  spread  evenly 
over  a  week,  makes  a  48-hour  week.  But  there  is  no  reason  why  it 
should  be  spread  evenly  over  every  day  in  the  week  if  industries 
can  be  better  served  otherwise.  For  instance,  there  is  laundry 
work,  which  as  I  know  and  all  of  you  know  has  its  busy  spell  in 


certain  days  of  the  week,  and  I  should  provide  for  it  accordingly. 
Again,  there  are  some  countries  in  which  Saturday  afternoon  work 
is  unknown.  I  should  make  provision  for  that  by  a  longer  working 
day  in  the  days  preceding  Saturday;  and  therefore  I  put  the  propo¬ 
sition  to  you  in  the  form  of  a  48-hour  week  instead  of  an  8-hour 
day.  I  am  inclined  to  think  if  that  be  adopted,  we  shall,  to  some 
extent,  avoid  or  prevent  troubles  arising  from  overtime.  [Applause.] 

In  the  next  place,  we  can  not  expect  at  present,  at  all  events,  to 
get  an  8-hour  day  for  all  countries  alike.  I  submit  it  would  be 
unfair — it  is  impossible,  in  the  first  place — but  even  if  it  were  pos¬ 
sible,  it  would  be  unfair  in  its  operation.  In  the  highly  developed 
countries,  such  as  Great  Britain,  or  America,  or  France,  an  8-hour 
day,  I  suppose,  is  as  productive  as  a  9-hour  day  or  possibly  a  10- 
hour  day  in  other  countries  of  more  primitive  methods  or  possibly 
where  there  is  a  more  trying  climate.  To  bring  India  or  Japan  into 
competition  with  Europe  or  America  on  the  same  level  of  hours 
would  be  simply  to  destroy  their  mass  of  industry,  and  to  try  would 
be  to  court  failure.  We  must  remember  that  the  conference  is 
pledged  to  have  regard  to  differences  in  climatic  or  other  conditions, 
and  even  if  we  were  inclined  to  disregard  that  injunction,  the 
countries  in  question  would  be  absolved  from  any  moral  obligation 
to  put  into  effect  our  convention.  We  must  remember  that  we  are 
not  infallible,  and  therefore  we  must  somehow  or  another  frame  our 
convention  to  get  compliance  by  good  will  instead  of  by  compulsion. 

Just  a  word  now  in  regard  to  my  last  consideration  of  a  limited 
character.  I  believe  that  for  this  conference  at  any  rate  our  con¬ 
vention  should  be  one  bearing  upon  industries  only,  as  distinct 
from  agriculture.  Agriculture  is  practically  excluded  from  our  con¬ 
sideration.  We  have  no  information  about  it  upon  which  to  frame  a 
convention.  Moreover  it  is  different  from  ordinary  industries. 
It  is  carried  on  in  many  countries  by  small  proprietors  under  a 
variety  of  conditions.  It  is  conditioned  by  seasons  and  by  require¬ 
ments  of  family  and  animal  life;  the  conditions  under  which  it  is 
carried  on  are  in  short  such  that  we  are  not  in  a  position  at  this  con¬ 
ference  to  analyze  it.  My  advice,  for  what  it  is  worth,  is  let  it  alone. 
Let  us  be  warned  by  the  trouble  that  we  find  in  certain  countries 
about  amendments  and  reservations  to  the  peace  treaty,  and  let 
us  so  frame  our  convention — limited,  if  you  like,  in  character,  but 
so  simple  as  to  have  it  applied  after  we  go  away  from  here  in  the 
various  countries  without  needless  talk  about  amendments  and 
reservations. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  having  ventured  to  submit  these  few  general 
observations,  let  me  proceed  to  say  something  about  the  convention 
which  has  been  prepared  for  us  by  the  organizing  committee. 

First,  as  to  its  scope:  It  applies  to  all  who  are  engaged  in  industry 
or  industrial  undertakings,  excepting  those  who  are  in  families  or 
in  confidential  positions  as  distinct  from  manual  workers.  That  is 
to  say,  it  excludes  the  son  in  a  small  family  business  that  may  be 
struggling  up  into  existence,  and  it  also  excludes  the  clerk  or  manager 
or  superintendent  or  person  of  confidential  character  in  a  factory, 
which  is  defined  here  as  “an  industrial  undertaking.” 

The  definition  of  industrial  undertaking  given  in  the  convention 
is,  I  think,  fairly  wide,  and  it  includes  pretty  well  everything  of 
which  the  organizing  committee  had  knowledge;  but  we  do  not 
want  to  confuse  ourselves  by  discussing  whether  it  is  sufficiently 
wide  or  not.  You  will  find  that  it  includes  a  great  many  things 
which  are  scheduled  under  schedule  A.  The  convention  does  not 
extend  hours  of  labor  in  any  industry  which  at  present  works  less 
than  48  hours  a  week,  so  that  miners  and  quarrymen  and  others  who 
are  at  present  enjoying  a  working  week  even  shorter  than  48  hours 
will  be  in  no  way  prejudiced  by  the  convention,  if  adopted. 

Clause  2  states  that  in  all  industrial  undertakings  with  the  ex¬ 
ceptions  above  mentioned  the  normal  working  week  shall  not  exceed 
48  hours,  and  that  in  cases  of  shift  industry — I  am  not  now  speaking 
of  continuous  shift  industry,  but  in  certain  shift  industries,  as  dis¬ 
tinct  from  continuous  shift  industries — the  hours  shall  not  exceed 
an  average  of  48  hours  per  week  in  any  one  month. 

Well,  now  we  come  to  clause  3,  which  contains  provision  for  addi¬ 
tional  time  being  worked  in  the  event  of  fire  or  flood  or  breakdown  of 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


35 


plant,  or  anything  which  in  its  happening  may  prevent  other  people 
from  working.  Provision,  of  course,  is  made  in  such  cases — over¬ 
time  may  be  worked;  and  although  it  is  not  specifically  stated  in 
the  convention,  yet  I  take  it  it  is  meant  in  those  cases  that  overtime 
rates  for  the  additional  time  worked  will  be  paid. 

Then,  clause  4  makes  provision  for  the  continuous-shift  industries 
that  I  mentioned  a  minute  or  two  ago;  that  is  to  say,  those  industries 
such  as  gas  or  electric  current  supply,  or  anything  which  is  connected 
with  the  running  of  services  for  the  community,  which  must  work 
night  and  day  throughout  the  week,  Saturday  and  Sunday  alike; 
and  provision  is  made  in  those  cases  that  the  working  week  shall  not 
exceed  56  hours;  that  is  to  say,  8  hours  for  each  shift,  whether  by 
day  or  by  night. 

Again,  those  industries  are  scheduled  and  will  be  taken  up  for 
consideration  when  we  come  to  discuss  whether  or  not  that  schedule 
is  sufficiently  included,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  sufficiently  ex¬ 
cluded.  This  clause  5  provides  for  a  statutory  working  week  for 
those  workers,  or  those  who  wait — and  waiting,  of  course,  is  tan¬ 
tamount  to  work.  Clause  5  provides  for  those  whose  work  is  ancil¬ 
lary  to  the  main  body  of  workers  in  any  particular  industry;  that 
is  to  say,  the  watchman,  or  the  timekeeper,  or  the  service  man, 
the  man  who  has  to  get  to  work  before  the  others  and  remain  a  little 
while  after  the  others.  And  provision  is  made  that  the  week  of  those 
people  shall  not  exceed  60  hours.  And  here  let  me  say  that  56  hours, 
in  regard  to  the  continuous-shift  industry  and  the  60  hours  in  regard 
to  the  service  men  are,  in  each  case,  the  normal  working  week 
without  overtime,  and  therefore,  the  pay,  of  course,  will  be  adjusted 
accordingly. 

And  now  I  come  to  the  question  of  overtime  which  is  dealt  with 
in  clause  6.  But  before  dealing  with  it,  may  I  make  just  a  general 
observation  of  a  personal  character  in  regard  to  overtime?  I  believe 
that  the  need  for  it  has  been  much  exaggerated.  We  have  now  a 
good  deal  of  experience  in  Great  Britain  through  factory  acts  extend¬ 
ing  over  more  than  a  century.  I  think  our  first  factory  act  was 
passed  in  the  year  1802,  and  we  have  had  many  factory  acts  since 
that  time,  especially  iu  the  textile  trade.  And  so  far  as  I  know — 
my  colleague,  Mr.  Shaw,  here,  may  know  better  than  me  about  the 
textile  industry,  because  he  is  in  it — but  so  far  as  1  know  there  has 
never  been  an  hour’s  overtime  work  in  the  whole  century  in  the 
cotton  trade.  Parenthetically  let  me  say  I  hope  I  shall  not  be 
regarded  as  being  in  any  way  pharisaical  in  suggesting  that  our 
practice  in  Great  Britain  is  better  than  the  practice  elsewhere.  1 
know  there  are  many  good  men  and  good  women  struggling  to  im¬ 
prove  themselves  everywhere  and  there  are  good  things  done  every¬ 
where.  I  am  now  simply  stating  what  I  know  to  be  a  fact  that  in 
our  country,  at  all  events,  the  need  for  overtime  has  not  been  proved 
to  be  a  necessity  in  the  textile  trade.  And  in  these  days  of  standard¬ 
ization  I  believe  that  the  need  for  overtime  ought  to  be  getting  less 
and  less  instead  of  more. 

That,  however,  let  me  say  again,  is  only  my  personal  opinion. 
There  are  those,  I  know,  who  regard  this  convention  that  has  been 
framed  for  us  as  not  sufficiently  elastic  and  who  feel  that  it  must 
be  improved  by  making  provisions  for  a  larger  amount  of  overtime, 
or  by  provision  for  larger  discretion  being  left  to  the  national  body. 
Those  views  must  somehow  or  other  be  brought  together,  and  that 
is  a  matter  for  friendly  discussion  afterwards.  But  now  just  let  me 
return  to  the  convention.  Clause  6  provides  that  in  certain  indus¬ 
tries  which  are  set  out  in  the  schedule — schedule  6 — you  will  find 
it  in  the  blue  book — in  those  articles  set  out  in  schedule  6 — and 
the  schedule  seems  to  leave  it  fairly  comprehensive  and  complete — 
overtime  may  be  worked  to  the  extent  of  150  hours  per  year.  Then 
you  will  find  that  the  subsection  B  of  clause  6  provides  that  any  other 
industry  may  be  worked — that  is  to  say,  industries  not  in  the  sched¬ 
ule — overtime  may  be  worked  to  the  extent  of  150  hours  for  the  first 
five  years,  and  then  100  hours  per  year  after  that,  subject,  of  course, 
in  both  cases  to  the  provision  that  at  least  25  per  cent  over  and 
above  the  ordinary  rates  for  day  work  shall  be  paid  for  that  overtime. 

If  reference  is  made  to  subsection  C  of  clause  8  it  will  be  found  that 
the  employer  who  introduces  overtime  will  be  under  obligation  to 
keep  a  record  in  a  form  prescribed  by  the  national  law;  that  is  to  say, 


of  all  additional  hours  worked,  in  accordance  with  clause  6  or  in 
accordance  with  subsection  C,  which  has  reference  to  fire,  flood,  or 
breakdown. 

Clause  7  provides  that  any  other  industry  not  in  the  schedule  may 
be  so  placed  in  the  schedule  on  the  application  of  any  country. 
That  is  to  say,  that  any  industry  not  found  in  either  one  of  schedules 
A,  B,  or  C  can,  on  application  of  such  country,  be  placed  in  either 
one  or  the  other.  Well,  I  believe  that  clause  7  is  altogether  an 
addenda,  because,  as  I  just  said,  subsection  B  of  clause  6  provides 
that  any  industry,  apart  from  those  in  the  schedule,  can  work  at  least 
150  hours  for  the  next  five  years  and  100  hours  thereafter.  There¬ 
fore,  if  we  succeed  in  filling  up  the  schedule  at  this  conference,  it 
seems  to  me  that  clause  7  might  be  left  out  of  the  convention  alto¬ 
gether.  .  There  seems  no  reason  for  it,  inasmuch  as  clause  6  provides 
for  overtime  being  worked  in  any  industry,  whether  that  industry 
is  in  the  schedule  or  is  to  be  put  in. 

Finally,  in  clause  8,  the  next  provision,  will  be  found  reference 
to  notification  in  the  works,  or  other  suitable  place,  of  the  time  at 
which  employment  begins  and  ends,  or  of  the  time  at  which  any 
particular  shift  begins  or  ends,  and  the  National  Government  will 
have  a  right  to  say  how  that  shall  be  done. 

Now  we  come,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  the  countries  for  which  special 
provision  has  to  be  made;  that  is  to  say,  the  coun tries  which  are  to 
some  extent  abnormal.  No  provision  has  been  made  for  them  in 
the  convention,  although  if  you  will  read  the  convention  you  will 
find  it  implied  that  such  special  provision  must  be  made;  in  fact, 
we  are  bound  to  make  it.  Article  405  of  the  peace  treaty  lays  it 
down  expressly  that  we  must  make  it. 

The  organizing  committee,  in  framing  the  convention,  had  no 
information  from  those  countries  upon  which  to  frame  any  special 
features  of  the  convention  for  your  consideration;  but  I  suggest  now 
that  we  should  set  up  a  special  commission  or  a  special  committee 
which  should  have  as  its  duty  the  consideration  of  the  special  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  the  eastern  countries,  and  that  that  special  com¬ 
mission  should  subsequently  report  its  findings  to  the  main  body  of 
the  conference. 

Provision  is  made  for  the  convention  being  brought  into  force  in 
July,  1921.  That,  of  course,  is  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the 
peace  treaty;  and  therefore  I  now  propose  the  convention  as  a 
basis  of  discussion,  with  the  proviso  that  we  remit  to  a  special  com¬ 
mittee  the  special  treatment  of  the  countries  of  special  climatic 
conditions  or  backward  conditions  of  industry.  It  may  be  neces¬ 
sary — I  think  it  will  be  necessary — to  set  up  other  committees; 
that  is  to  say,  I  think  this  conference  is  too  large  to  deal  with  the  de¬ 
tailed  questions  about  overtime.  Probably,  therefore,  we  shall  be 
compelled  to  set  up  other  committees  in  the  course  of  our  discussion; 
but  I  move  that  we  now  set  up  this  one,  because  we  have  the  duty 
imposed  upon  us  by  the  treaty  to  do  so. 

I  find  that  a  resolution  has  been  drafted  for  me  in  accordance  with 
what  I  have  said,  and  it  is  as  follows: 

That  the  draft  convention  of  the  48  hours’  week  prepared  by  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  be  adopted  by  the  conference  as  the  basis  for  discussion,  but  that  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  its  application  to  the  tropical  and  other  countries  referred  to  in  the  third 
paragraph  of  article  405  of  the  treaty  be  referred  in  the  first  instance  for  consideration 
by  a  special  committee  which  shall  report  to  the  conference. 

I  move  that. 

And  now,  just  one  final  word.  My  labor  folks — and  I  regard  my¬ 
self,  too,  as  being  a  labor  man,  although  I  happen,  by  the  accident 
of  time,  to  be  a  Government  representative — my  labor  colleagues  and 
comrades  will  think  I  have  been  somewhat  moderate  and  modest  in  my 
proposals  and  my  suggestions  throughout  my  speech.  If  so,  I  would 
say  to  them  that  this  conference  is  not  the  last  conference.  It  is 
the  first  one.  I  would  say  to  them  that  what  we  can  not  do  this  year 
we  may  do  next  year  or  the  year  after.  This  conference  is  only  the 
beginning  of  a  series  of  conferences  which  will  take  place  year  by 
year.  This  conference  is  going  to  set  up  a  permanent  organization, 
an  international  labor  office,  which  shall  have  as  its  duty  the  mobiliza¬ 
tion  and  making  effective  of  humane  public  opinion  throughout  the 
world.  I  therefore  attach  importance  and  regard  as  supreme  that 


36 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


at  this  conference  we  should  come  forward  with  some  proposals 
which  afterwards  shall  be  adopted  by  the  different  countries  repre¬ 
sented  here;  that  is  to  say,  I  attach  more  importance  to  practical 
results  than  to  the  propagation  of  any  theory. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  to  my  mind  we  are  taking  part  here  in  a 
movement  which  is  destined  to  have  far-reaching  effects  after  we 
have  gone  from  here.  We  are  taking  part  in  a  movement  which 
may  have  the  effect  of  setting  up  different  and,  I  hope,  better  rela¬ 
tions,  not  only  industrially  but  humanly.  Too  long,  I  believe, 
classes  in  all  the  countries  have  been  inclined  to  fight  and  bruise 
one  another,  and  after  every  fight  to  bind  up  their  wounds  and 
prepare  for  another  fight,  with  the  inevitable  result,  of  course,  of 
accentuating  class  bitterness,  of  destroying  wealth,  upon  which  the 
welfare  of  all  of  us  depends,  and  of  inflicting  untold  suffering  on 
women  and  children,  who  have  little  or  no  part  in  the  causing  or  the 
conducting  of  the  fight.  I  believe  the  best  men  and  women  of  all 
countries  are  sick  of  it  and  are  looking  forward  to  the  organization 
of  some  new  and  better  means  not  only  of  adjusting  practical  diffi¬ 
culties,  but  of  raising  life  and  labor  from  the  low  plane  of  animal 
and  physical  struggle  onto  the  higher  ground  of  reason  and  justice 
and  common  sense.  That  is  the  sort  of  movement  that  we  are  here 
inaugurating.  If  we  succeed — and  we  must  succeed — then  I  be¬ 
lieve  we  shall  lay  the  foundation  for  a  better  and  brighter  world  for 
those  who  follow  us  than  that  we  have  ourselves  experienced. 
[Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  moved  by  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes 
that  the  draft  convention  on  the  48- hour  week  prepared  by  the 
organizing  committee  be  adopted  by  the  conference  as  the  basis  for 
discussion,  but  that  the  question  of  its  application  to  the  tropical 
and  other  countries  referred  to  in  the  third  paragraph  of  article  405 
of  the  treaty  be  referred  in  the  first  instance  for  consideration  by  a 
special  committee  which  shall  report  to  the  conference.  The 
question  is  now  on  the  adoption  of  this  motion. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  The  Italian  delegation, 
which  has  listened  with  respectful  attention  to  the  eloquent  speech 
made  by  Mr.  Barnes,  has  the  honor  to  support  his  motion.  The 
Italian  delegation  takes  this  occasion,  however,  to  beg  that  from 
now  on  consideration  will  be  given  the  fact  that  although  the  8-hour 
day  has  been  under  discussion  and  investigation  at  the  present  con¬ 
ference  it  has  not  been  applied  with  reference  to  the  agricultural 
classes;  it  is  hoped  that  due  consideration  will  be  given  by  the 
organizing  committee  of  the  next  conference.  The  Italian  delegate 
has  been  inspired  by  the  enormous  contributions  toward  our  success 
in  the  war  made  by  the  Italian  agricultural  classes,  who  deserve 
the  consideration  of  the  Italian  Government.  Aside  from  this 
one  reservation  we  wholeheartedly  support  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion. 
[Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  desire  to  be  informed  on  this  point 
before  I  cast  my  vote  either  for  or  against  the  motion.  It  is 
this:  If  this  motion  should  be  adopted  by  this  conference,  will  it 
bind  the  delegates  to  the  conference  to  the  48-hour  week  proposal, 
or  is  it  just  a  basis  for  discussion?  I  see  that  the  tropical  countries 
are  excepted.  In  order  that  I  may  be  quite  clear  before  I  vote, 
I  would  like  to  know,  when  this  vote  is  taken,  if  amendments  may 
be  submitted  from  time  to  time  providing  for  an  8-hour  day  or  a 
44-hour  week? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  would  ask  the  mover  of  the  motion  to  state 
whether  or  not  the  Chair  is  in  error  in  his  interpretation  of  the  reso¬ 
lution  when  he  states  that  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Barnes  brings 
the  whole  question  of  the  48-hour  week  as  prepared  by  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee  before  the  conference  for  consideration  and  makes 
that  report  the  basis  of  consideration.  It  does  not  tie  the  con¬ 
ference  down  to  the  acceptance  of  any  of  its  provisions,  as  stated. 
The  conference  would  be  in  a  position,  if  in  its  judgment  it  so  desired; 
to  change  the  terms  of  any  of  the  provisions.  The  specific  thing  that 
is  provided  for  in  the  resolution  is  that  the  matter,  as  it  applies  to 
tropical  and  other  countries  referred  to  in  the  third  paragraph  of 
article  405  of  the  treaty,  is  to  be  referred  to  a  special  committee  for 


consideration.  I  would  ask  the  mover  of  the  motion  if  I  have 
interpreted  his  intention. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  I  understand.  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
^ou  have  addressed  a  question  to  me — I  am  sorry  I  was  absent  for 
the  moment — as  to  whether  or  not  the  suggestion  should  be  ac¬ 
cepted  that  an  amendment  should  be  proposed  of  an  8-hour  day 
instead  of  a  48-hour  week. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No.  May  I  try  to  make  myself  clear  by 
using  other  language? 

As  I  interpret  your  motion  it  takes  the  language  that  has  been 
prepared  by  the  organizing  committee  and  submicted  in  its  draft  of 
a  convention  to  limit  the  hours  of  work  in  industrial  undertakings 
to  48  hours  in  the  week  as  the  basis  for  the  consideration  of  that 
subject  matter  by  this  conference.  In  other  words,  instead  of 
the  conference  sending  it  to  some  other  smaller  body,  to  put  it  in 
draft  language,  you  accept  the  draft  language  that  has  been  pre¬ 
pared  by  the  organizing  committee;  your  motion  brings  that  draft 
language  before  the  conference  as  the  basis  for  consideration,  and 
as  that  draft  language  is  considered  section  by  section  and  item 
by  item  the  conference  may  in  its  own  wisdom  amend  it  if  it  so 
desires.  The  other  specific  thing  that  is  in  your  motion  is  that  the 
matter  as  it  applies  to  the  oriental  and  other  coun  cries  mentioned 
in  article  405  is  referred  to  a  special  committee.  Have  1  interpreted 
your  motion  correctly? 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  much 
left  for  me  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  think  you  have  put  the  proposal 
fairly  well,  so  far  as  I  understand  it.  The  treaty  laid  it  down  that 
we  were  to  have  either  an  8-hour  day  or  a  48-hour  week.  The 
organizing  committee  put  this  forward  as  the  basis  of  discussion  on 
a  48-hour  week.  I  take  it  that  it  would  be  open  to  amendment 
only  in  so  far  as  amendments  were  compatible  with  the  principle  of 
the  48-hour  week.  That  is  my  reasoning. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Draper. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  The  explanation  given  by  the  Right 
Hon.  Mr.  Barnes  is  not  exactly  in  accord  with  the  explanation 
given  by  you,  as  president  of  this  conference,  if  I  interpret  your  lan¬ 
guage  aright.  Now,  according  to  the  explanation  given  by  the  Right 
Hon.  Mr.  Barnes,  after  this  motion  has  been  adopted  we  shall  not  be 
able  to  submit  amendments  to  this  conference;  we  shall  be  com¬ 
mitted  to  the  48-hour  week — not,  according  to  my  understanding 
of  it,  to  the  8-hour  day. 

The  country  from  which  I  come,  Canada,  has  in  many  of  the  indus¬ 
tries  an  8-hour  day  and  a  44-hour  week,  and  I  desire  to  be  quite 
clear  on  the  proposition  before  voting  for  this  motion.  I  maintain 
that  if  this  motion  is  passed  now  it  is  simply  giving  what  we  would 
call  a  second  reading  to  a  bill  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  that 
therefore  any  discussion  that  is  to  take  place  on  this  proposition 
should  take  place  now  before  it  goes  to  the  committee,  and  as  the 
representative  of  the  working  people  of  Canada  I  am  not  in  favor  of 
the  proposition  as  submitted  by  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes.  I 
believe  that  if  we  are  nailed  down  to  the  proposition  that  we  can 
only  have  a  48-hour  week  or  an  8-hour  day,  that  it  opens,  the  door 
for  allowing  certain  industries  to  work  9,  10,  11,  or  12  hours  a  day, 
it  makes  no  difference  as  long  as  the  48  hours  per  week  has  been 
worked.  I  don’t  think  that  that  is  a  good  proposition,  and  of  course 
I  would  like  to  hear  some  further  explanation  on  the  matter  before 
I  cast  my  vote. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Gentlemen,  I  have  not  the  least  inten¬ 
tion  in  the  world  of  going  too  deeply  into  the  matter  at  the  present 
time.  Until  we  met  here  this  afternoon  we  were  ignorant  of  the 
motion  made  by  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes.  We  did  not  know 
yesterday  that  this  motion  was  on  the  order  of  business.  It  seems 
contradictory  to  article  13.  We  came  without  knowiig  that  we 
would  have  to  discuss  the  above-mentioned  motion.  1  therefore 
appeal  to  Mr.  Barnes’s  fairness  and  courtesy,  and  request  that  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  motion  be  postponed  until  a  later  meeting. 

And  do  you  not  think,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  it  would  be 
more  practical  to  refer  this  motion  to  a  special  committee  which  can 
discuss  it  at  leisure,  and  which  tan  also  consider  other  motions  of  a 


INTERNATIONAL  L 

similar  nature,  such  as  the  particular  one  that  has  been  proposed 
by  the  employers?  In  that  way,  through  discussion  and  exchange 
of  opinions,  a  balance  can  probably  be  struck  between  these  two — 
or  if  there  were  another,  three — motions  of  like  nature.  Then  after 
a  satisfactory  text  has  been  agreed  on,  it  can  be  placed  before  the 
general  meeting  for  consideration,  thus  enabling  us  to  discuss  the 
motion  to  full  advantage  in  open  meeting.  I  do  not  believe,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  that  I  am  saying  anything  to  which  exception  can 
be  taken  when  I  say  that  an  extended  debate  among  so  many  people 
would  be  apt  to  cause  confusion.  I  therefore  believe  that  it  would 
be  the  better  part  of  wisdom  to  proceed  in  the  manner  just  outlined 
in  order  to  achieve  a  mature  and  thorough  consideration  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  motion  and  any  others  which  may  arise.  If  my  observations 
ought  to  be  made  in  the  form  of  a  motion,  will  you  kindly  allow  me 
time  in  which  to  draft  it?  I  shall  draft  it  immediately.  I  move  that 
a  committee  be  nominated  for  consideration  of  the  proposal  made 
by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes  and  for  other  proposals  of  a  similar  nature. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  With  regard  to  M. 
Guerin’s  statement  I  must  say  I  fully  sympathize  with  him  as  to 
the  necessity  for  time  to  enable  us  to  consider  the  statement  that 
Mr.  Barnes  has  put  before  us,  explaining  his  views  and  his  lofty 
ideals  in  connection  with  the  48-hour  week.  I  think  really  that  the 
best  thing  at  the  present  time  would  be  for  us  to  adjourn  this  meet¬ 
ing  until  such  time  as  we  have  Mr.  Barnes’  proposals  before  us  in 
writing.  I  venture  to  submit  the  following  resolution:  That  this 
conference  do  now  adjourn  until — I  do  not  know  when  the  proposals 
will  be  before  us,  but  we  shall  require  24  hours  to  consider  them — 
until  the  important  statement  of  the  Right  lion.  G.  N.  Barnes  shall 
have  been  printed  and  circulated  and  the  delegates  have  had  at 
least  24  hours  to  consider  the  same. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  I  second  the  motion. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  May  I  make  the  time 
more  definite  and  suggest  10  o’clock  on  Thursday  morning? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  I  would  venture  to  suggest  to  Mr. 
Marjoribanks  that  he  should  modify  his  resolution.  I  would  suggest 
that  Mr.  Marjoribanks  modify  his  resolution  by  simply  moving  the 
adjournment  of  the  debate.  That  will  permit  of  the  matter  coming 
up  in  regular  course  at  the  next  sitting  of  the  conference.  As  I 
understand  it,  the  committee  of  selection  has  a  report  to  make  and 
certain  committees  to  be  named.  I  submit,  Mr.  President,  it  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  that  this  conference  should  get  on  with  its  work 
and  that  the  committees  which  the  committee  of  selection  has 
already  been  authorized  to  name  should  be  named,  so  that  they 
might  be  meeting  and  undertaking  their  work.  Therefore,  Mr. 
Majoribanks  can  accomplish  all  he  desires  by  simply  moving  the 
adjournment  of  the  debate. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Adjourn  until  when? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (continuing).  Then  we  proceed  with  the  rest  of  the 
business  for  this  afternoon  which  was  on  the  agenda  for  to-day  ’ssitting. 

Mr.  BALDESI,  Italy  (remarks  in  Italian).  I  am  opposed  to  the 
proposed  adjournment,  because  I  can  see  no  need  of  adjourning 
this  discussion.  Every  time  that  some  divergence  of  opinion  occurs 
in  this  meeting,  some  one  immediately  jumps  up  and  proposes  an 
adjournment.  The  question  of  an  8-hour  day  can  not  be  a  new 
matter  to  anybody  here.  It  has  been  54  years  since  the  question 
of  an  8-hour  day  was  first  under  discussion. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  He  knows  nothing  about  those  54  years. 
I  ask  the  floor. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy),  continuing:  We  ought  to  give  to  the  world 
an  example  that  when  a  business  or  professional  conference  assembles 
it  proceeds  more  rapidly  with  its  work  than  a  political  conference. 
What  need  is  there  for  an  adjournment  on  the  motion  proposed  by 
the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes? 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  We  are  going  to  tell  him. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy)  continuing:  All  thatmotion containsis  that 
the  proposal  of  the  organizing  committee  be  the  basis  for  a  debate. 

The  only  question  that  has  arisen  is  that  raised  by  the  workmen ’s 
delegate  from  Canada,  who  raised  the  question  whether  it  should 
be  an  8-hour  day  instead  of  a  48-hour  week.  Now,  this  meeting  is 
perfectly  prepared  to  discuss  that  question  right  away,  whether 


LB  OB  CONFERENCE  37 

it  be  a  48-hour  week  or  an  8-hour  day  which  is  to  be  decided  as 
the  basis  of  which  this  conference  approves. 

I  therefore  move  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  be  immediately 
put  to  the  vote  and  that  after  its  acceptance  this  assembly  pass  to 
the  debate  on  the  question  of  applying  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48- 
hour  week.  I  remind  this  assembly  that,  after  all,  it  is  an  accom¬ 
plished  fact;  in  almost  all  the  industrial  countries  the  8-hour  day  or 
48-hour  week  is  an  accomplished  fact;  and  it  would  be  strange, 
indeed,  if  this  meeting  were  to  be  here  to  discuss  and  waste  time 
in  discussing  what  is  already  an  accomplished  fact  in  most  countries. 
[Applause.] 

Mr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President,  it  seems  to  me  es¬ 
sential  for  the  conference  to  agree  on  the  exact  meaning  of  Mr. 
Barnes’  motion.  Unless  I  am  mistaken,  as  it  stands,  there  are  two 
explanations. 

The  first  explanation  is  that  Mr.  Barnes’  motion  is  a  basis  for  dis¬ 
cussion — I  have  accepted  it  in  such  a  light — and  that  amendments 
will  be  in  order,  among  others  substitution  of  the  8-hour  day  for  the 
48-hour  week.  Perhaps  the  conference  is  not  aware  that  the  former 
system  obtains  under  our  laws.  The  second  explanation  is  that 
of  the  Canadian  labor  representative,  unless  I  am  mistaken,  who  is 
afraid  that  if  Mr.  Barnes’  motion  were  adopted  it  would  result  in  12 
and  possibly  15  hour  days,  even  with  a  48-hour  or  a  54-hour  week. 

We  may  stand  for  the  latter  system,  and  in  that  case  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  is  possible  to  propose  an  amendment  carrying  this  inter¬ 
pretation  of  Mr.  Barnes’  motion.  There  is  no  reason  for  delaying 
the  discussion  if  this  is  the  construction  to  be  put  upon  the  motion. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  put  the  motion  to  the  vote  now  if  it  is  to  be 
construed  as  an  immediate  decision  that  the  8-hour  day  is  not  to  be 
discussed  and  that  the  48-hour  system  is  to  be  adopted.  It  is  a 
proper  point  for  discussion,  a  point  which  for  the  moment  needs  to  be 
discussed.  If  this  is  the  case  it  seems  to  me  that  the  only  thing  to 
do  is  to  continue  the  discussion  and  that  the  first  part  of  Mr.  Barnes’ 
motion  can  not  be  put  to  a  vote  until  after  the  matter  has  been  de¬ 
bated  .  That  is  so  clear  that  I  can  not  understand  how  there  can  be  any 
doubt  about  it.  If  this  last  interpretation  is  the  one  held  by  the  Chair, 
then  there  is  no  question  of  putting  the  first  part  of  Mr.  Barnes’  motion 
to  the  vote,  for  the  time  being,  but  of  discussing  the  matter.  We 
are  now  in  the  midst  of  the  discussion  of  this  point.  I  want  to  say 
this:  If  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes,  who  made  this  motion,  believes 
that  the  latter  construction  should  be  put  upon  his  motion,  i.  e., 
that  the  conference  is  to  decide  immediately  on  the  48-hour  system, 
then  the  debate  should  be  continued,  and  the  matter  not  yet  put  to 
a  vote.  If  his  idea  is  simply  to  establish  a  basis  for  discussion,  how¬ 
ever,  then  the  motion  can  be  voted  upon  at  once,  inasmuch  as  the 
main  point  of  the  motion  (exclusive  of  the  first  part,  it  goes  without 
saying)  is  simply  the  appointment  of  a  special  committee  to  fill  the 
gaps  in  the  resolution. 

Mr.  President,  it  seems  to  me  imperative  for  a  definite  interpre¬ 
tation  to  be  put  on  this  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  Ecuador  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman.  We 
are  breaking  our  own  rules  and  regulations.  Article  14  of  our  rules 
and  regulations  reads  as  follows: 

A  delegate  may  at  any  time  move  the  closure  of  the  discussion  whether  other 
delegates  have  signified  their  wash  to  speak  or  not.  If  application  is  made  for  per¬ 
mission  to  speak  against  the  closure,  it  may  only  be  accorded  to  a  single  speaker. 
The  president  shall  take  the  sense  of  the  conference  on  the  motion,  which  shall  be  de¬ 
cided  by  a  show  of  hands.  If  a  majority  of  the  delegates  present  vote  in  favor  of 
the  closure,  the  president  shall  pronounce  the  closure  of  the  sitting  accordingly. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  No  one  has  asked  for  the  floor. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  am  not  opposed  to  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Baldesi,  but  'the  fact  is  that  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  with  the  support  of 
Mr.  Guerin,  has  proposed  the  closure  upon  this  matter  for  to-day,  and 
according  to  the  regulations  of  our  own  committees — of  our  own  con¬ 
ference — we  have  first  to  vote  on  that  motion,  but  without  hearing 
anybody  else.  If  the  conference  does  not  vote  on  the  motion,  we 
shall  continue  the  discussion.  If  the  conference  accepts  the  motion, 
there  is  no  more  discussion  for  to-day.  It  is  a  question  of  order  and 
of  obeying  our  own  rules. 


38  '  INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFER ENCE 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  point  of  order  is  not  well  taken,  if  the 
Chair  understands  correctly  the  motions  that  have  been  made. 
There  is  a  motion  pending  to  adjourn  to  a  given  date.  A  motion  to 
adjourn  w'ould  not  be  debatable.  That  would  act  as  a  closure.  But 
a  motion  to  adjourn  to  a  given  time  is  debatable  and  does  not  act  as 
a  closure.  The  motion  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi  was  that  we  proceed  to 
vote  upon  the  motion  of  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes,  which  was  not 
at  that  time  before  the  house,  the  question  before  the  house  at  that 
time  being  the  motion  of  Mr.  Marjoribanks  to  adjourn  to  a  given  time. 
So,  as  the  Chair  understands  the  situation,  the  point  of  order  is  not 
well  taken. 

Mr.  Varela  from  Uruguay  is  recognized. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  I  only  want  to  say  that  I  think  Mr. 
Barnes’  motion  is  as  plain  as  day;  it  is  not  a  question  of  interpretation, 
but  a  question  of  reading.  When  a  motion  states  that  the  draft  of 
the  commission  serves  as  a  basis  for  discussion  it  is  quite  clearly  not 
a  resolution.  It  is  a  matter  of  following  parliamentary  procedure. 

A  draft  regulation  is  made  by  the  Government,  by  commissions, 
but  the  assembly  has  the  right  to  make  amendments,  and  to  alter 
the  motions  made  by  the  commissions  from  beginning  to  end.  I 
believe  this  to  be  the  case  with  the  draft  proposed  by  the  committee 
of  selection  recommended  by  Mr.  Barnes  as  a  basis  for  discussion. 
I  might  add  that  I  think  the  Italian  delegate  quite  right  in  requesting 
an  immediate  discussion,  because  everybody  must  have  definite 
views  on  the  question  of  the  48-hour  week  and  the  8-hour  day.  We 
would  save  time  and  finish  our  work  sooner  if  the  conference  did  not 
tolerate  delays  such  as  these. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  recognizes  Mr.  Tom  Shaw,  of 
the  British  delegation. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  Mr.  Barnes’  statement  was  perfectly  clear  and  precise  and 
that  his  motion  means  that  all  the  clauses  in  the  convention 
will  be  open  to  amendment,  but  that  no  amendment,  under  his 
motion,  will  in  any  way  interfere  with  48  hours  being  the  hours 
worked  during  the  week,  whether  by  day  or  by  week.  Whether 
it  be  called  the  8-hour  day,  or  whatever  it  may  be  called,  his 
proposal  means  the  acceptance  in  principle  of  48  hours  per  week. 

That  forms,  certainly,  a  problem  for  many  of  the  labor  delegates 
in  the  meeting.  It  is  evidently  the  desire  of  some  employers  that 
they  may  be  able  to  consider  certain  points  before  the  discussion 
proceeds.  It  is,  in  my  opinion,  no  use  to  try  to  go  on  with  the  dis¬ 
cussion  at  this  moment.  It  would  be  equivalent  to  forcing  down 
the  throats  of  either  of  the  parties  ideas  which  they  have  n&t  prop¬ 
erly  considered.  But  at  the  same  time  is  there  any  reason  why  the 
conference  should  adjourn  for  a  complete  break  until  Thursday 
morning,  when  it  is  possible  for  both  employers  and  employees  and 
the  Government  representatives  to  meet  to-morrow  and  come  to  a 
clear  decision  in  the  morning  as  to  what  they  desire  and  to  meet 
here  after  lunch  with  their  program  properly  marked  out  and  their 
ideas  in  order?  I  suggest  that  while  it  is  not  necessary  to  force  any¬ 
thing  against  any  section,  sections  ought  to  be  reasonable  in  the 
time  that  they  require,  and  I  move  this  discussion  be  now  adjourned 
and  resumed  at  2.30  to-morrow  afternoon.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  There  is  evidently  considerable  con¬ 
fusion  in  our  minds  at  the  present  time,  simply  because  Mr.  Barnes 
wished  us  to  discuss  the  substance  of  his  motion  and  not  the  form. 

If  it  had  occurred  to  Mr.  Barnes  that  the  adoption  of  his  motion 
would  involve  exclusive  consideration  of  the  48-hour  week,  obvi¬ 
ously  the  majority  of  labor  delegates  in  this  assembly  could  not 
accept  this  interpretation  of  a  decrease  in  working  hours.  With  us 
the  48-hour  week  arose  from  application  of  the  8-hour  day  system. 
We  must  therefore  know  at  this  time  whether  we  are  discussing 
substance  or  form. 

I  therefore  move,  in  support  of  Mr.  Shaw,  that  the  discussion  be 
adjourned  for  the  present,  to  enable  the  employers  and  labor  dele¬ 
gations  to  come  to  an  agreement  on  this  question  at  their  respective 
meetings.  For  it  seems  that  certain  delegations  agree  with  Mr. 
Barnes’  motion  while  other  labor  delegations  favor  the  eight-hour 
day  theory. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Parsons  of  the  Canadian  delegation. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman,  it  appears  to  me  that 
the  motion  made  by  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes  has  in  the  second 
part  of  it  that  which  we  should  consider  first  of  all.  It  refers, 
you  will  remember,  to  the  question  of  the  application  to  the  tropical 
and  other  countries  referred  to  in  the  third  paragraph  of  article  405 
of  the  treaty.  He  referred,  in  the  first  instance,  to  a  special  com¬ 
mittee  to  report.  Now,  it  appears  to  me  that  we  ought  to  nave  the 
report  of  this  committee  before  the  conference  in  order  that  we  may 
intelligently  discuss  the  whole  question  of  the  eight-hour  day.  I 
therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  have  either  an  amendment  or  a  substitute 
motion — T  am  not  sure  which — to  propose,  and  it  is  as  follows:  That 
the  question  of  the  application  of  the  eight-hour  day  to  the  tropical 
and  other  countries  referred  to  in  the  third  paragraph  of  article  405 
of  the  treaty  be  referred,  in  the  first  instance,  for  consideration  to  a 
special  committee,  which  shall  report  to  the  conference.  Upon  the 
receipt  of  the  report  of  said  committee  we  shall  proceed  to  discuss 
the  entire  question  of  the  eight-hour  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  motion  will  not  at  this  time  be  in  order. 
May  I  call  the  attention  of  the  conference  to  the  fact  that  the  motion 
to  defer  debate  is  not  itself  debatable,  and  the  question  now  recurs 
to  the  motion  to  defer  debate  on  the  question  before  the  house  to 
2.30  to-morrow  afternoon. 

The  question  is  on  the  motion  to  defer  debate  until  2.30  to-morrow 
afternoon.  As  many  as  favor  that  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands 
and  keep  them  raised  until  counted.  [Hands  raised.] 

Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised 
until  counted.  [Hands  raised.] 

Those  in  favor  are  56.  Those  opposed  are  13.  The  motion  to  defer 
debate  has  been  agreed  to. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  A  motion  has  been  made  to  adjourn  until 
day  after  to-morrow.  This  motion  should  be  put  to  a  vote  first. 
The  longest  delay  is  always  proposed  first. 

The  PRESIDENT.  In  a  strict  parliamentary  sense,  I  suppose  a 
motion  to  adjourn  until  Thursday  morning  at  10  o’clock  would  be 
pending  before  the  conference.  May  I  suggest  a  part  of  the  day’s 
agenda  is  yet  unconsidered ;  that  it  would  facilitate  the  business  of 
the  conference  if  it  were  considered  before  adjournment,  that  part  I 
referred  to  at  the  opening  of  the  conference,  the  appointing  of  certain 
committees  for  certain  purposes,  and  unless  there  is  objection  on  the 
part  of  the  conference  the  report  with  regard  to  the  creation  of  cer¬ 
tain  committees  will  be  considered. 

I  hear  no  objection  and  the  committee  of  selection  will  report 
relative  to  the  creation  of  other  commissions  on  unemployment,  etc. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  first  resolution  is  as  follows: 


That  the  following  be  appointed  a  commission  to  consider  the  second  item  in  the 
agenda  of  the  conference,  namely  the  question  of  preventing  or  providing  against 
unemployment,  with  special  reference  to  the  report  submitted  by  the  organizing 
committee  thereon,  and  the  recommendations  made  in  that  report,  and  to  make 
recommendations  to  the  conference  on  the  matter.  The  namesof  the  commission  are 
as  follows: 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Julin. 

Mr.  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Robertson. 

Mr.  Parsons. 

Mr.  Draper,  acting  provisionally  as 
substitute  for  Mr.  Gompers. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  Madsen. 

France: 

Mr.  Lazard. 

Mr.  Gu6rin. 

Mr.  Dumoulin. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  Stuart-Bunning. 


Greece: 

Mr.  Soflanopoulos. 

Italy: 

Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Mr.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Muto. 

Mr.  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mr.  Blomjous. 

Mr.  Serrarens. 

Norway. 

Mr.  Paus. 

Mr.  Teigen. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Sokal. 

Mr.  Zagleniczny. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Drocha. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eta. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR 


'the  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  report  of  the  committee 
of  selection  for  the  creation  of  a  committee  on  unemployment,  com¬ 
posed  of  the  persons  whose  names  were  read.  Without  objection, 
the  report  will  be  agreed  to  unanimously.  It  is  so  agreed. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  next  resolution  is  as  follows: 

That  the  following  be  appointed  a  commission  to  consider  the  question  of  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  and  children  in  unhealthy  processes,  with  special  reference  to  the 
report  made  thereon  by  the  organizing  committee  and  the  recommendations  made  in 
that  report,  and  to  make  recommendations  to  the  conference  in  the  matter. 


Mr.  Joshi,  India. 

Mr.  Fasolato,  Italy,  acting  for  Baron  Mayor  des  Planche 
Mr.  Baroni,  Italy,  acting  for  Mr.  Quartieri. 

Mr.  Uyeda,  Japan,  acting  for  Dr.  Oka. 

Mr.  Muto,  Japan. 

Mr.  Vidnes,  Norway,  acting  for  Mr.  Ole  Lian. 

Mr.  Bernatowicz,  Poland. 

Mr.  Sala,  Spain. 

Mr.  Caballero,  Spain. 

Mr.  Smyth,  South  Africa. 

Dr.  Sulzer,  Switzerland. 


The  names  of  'he  commission  are  as  follows: 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Glibert. 

Mr.  Dallemagne. 

Mr.  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Draper. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Spinka. 

France: 

Mr.  Boulin. 

Mr.  Henry. 

Mr.  Bidegarray. 
Great  Britain: 

Dr.  Legge. 

Mr.  Marjoribanks. 
Mr.  Stuart-Bunning. 


Italy: 

Mr.  Fasolato. 

Mr.  Baroni. 
Japan: 

Mr.  Muto. 
Netherlands: 

Mr.  van  Thienen. 
Mr.  Baas. 
Norway: 

Mr.  Paus. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Barbosa. 
Spain: 

Mr.  Araquistain. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Schindler. 
Mr.  Ilg. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  presented  by  the  committee  of  selection  to  appoint  a 
committee  on  employment  of  women  and  children  in  unhealthful 
processes.  Without  objection,  the  resolution  will  be  agreed  to 
unanimously.  It  is  so  agreed. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  third  resolution  is  as 
follows: 


That  the  following  be  a  commission  to  consider  the  question  of  the  employment  of 
women  (a)  before  and  after  childbirth,  including  the  question  of  maternity  benefit; 
(6)  during  the  night;  with  special  reference  to  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee 
on  this  subject  and  the  recommendations  made  in  that  report,  and  to  make  recom¬ 
mendations  to  the  conference. 


The  names  of  the  committee  are: 

Mr.  de  Smet  de  Nayer  and  Mr.  Mertens,  of  Belgium. 

Mr.  Draper,  of  Canada. 

Mr.  Elizalde,  of  Ecuador. 

Mrs.  Majerova,  of  Czecho-Slovakia. 

Mrs.  Letellier,  Mr.  Henry,  and  Miss  Bouvier,  of  France. 

Miss  Smith,  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  and  Miss  Bondfield,  of.Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Kershaw  and  Mr.  Joshi,  of  India. 

Mrs.  Cassartelli  Cabrini  and  Comm.  Baroni  of  Italy. 

Mr.  Kamada,  Mr.  Muto,  and  Mr.  Masumoto,  of  Japan. 

Judge  Castberg,  of  Norway. 

Mr.  Edstrom,  of  Sweden. 

Mr.  Schindler,  of  Switzerland. 

It  is  understood  that  all  women  advisers  who  are  not  in  the  above 
list  have  the  right  to  be  present  at  meetings  of  the  committee  in 
their  capacity  of  advisers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  resolution  presented 
by  the  committee  of  selection  to  create  a  committee  on  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  women,  (a)  before  and  after  childbirth,  including  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  maternity  benefit;  (b)  during  the  night.  Without  objection 
the  resolution  will  be  agreed  to  unanimously.  It  is  so  agreed. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  fourth  resolution  is  as 
follows: 

That  the  following  be  appointed  a  commission  to  consider  the  questions  of  (a)  the 
Tni'nimnm  age  of  employment  of  children;  (6)  the  employment  of  children  during  the 
night;  with  special  reference  to  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee  on  these  sub¬ 
jects  and  the  recommendations  made  in  that  report,  and  to  make  recommendations 
to  the  conference.  The  names  of  the  committee: 

Mr.  Fraipont,  Belgium,  acting  for  Mr.  earlier. 

Mr.  Armenteros  y  Cardenas,  Cuba. 

Mr.  Sousek,  Czecho-Slovakia. 

Mr.  Hedebol,  Denmark,  acting  for  Mr.  Madsen. 

Mr.  Henry,  France,  acting  for  Mr.  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Lenoir,  France,  acting  for  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  Great  Britain. 

MRs  MacArthur,  Great  Britain,  acting  for  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Mr.  Cantacuz&ne,  Greece. 

Mr.  Murray,  India. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  resolution  presented 
by  the  committee  of  selection  to  create  a  committee  (a)  on  the  mini¬ 
mum  age  of  employment  of  children;  ( b )  on  the  employment  of  chil¬ 
dren  during  the  night.  Without  objection  the  resolution  will  be 
agreed  to  unanimously.  It  is  so  agreed  to. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  would  suggest,  if  there  is  no 
objection,  that  each  of  those  committees  should  hold  its  first  meet¬ 
ing  at  12  o’clock  to-morrow  morning  in  order  to  arrange  for  the  future 
course  of  their  business.  If  that  is  agreed  to,  I  will  announce  the 
number  of  the  rooms  this  evening. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  May  I  point  out  that 
the  discussion  on  the  48-hour  week,  or  8-hour  day,  was  adjourned 
until  2.30  to-morrow  for  the  purpose  of  giving  us  an  opportunity  to 
consult  amongst  ourselves?  A  great  many  of  us  are  nominated  to 
these  committees.  If  we  meet  at  12  o’clock  to  arrange  the  order  of 
procedure  of  these  committees,  it  takes  away  at  least  an  hour  of  most 
important  time  when  we  should  be  otherwise  engaged  in  the  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  still  more  important  points  of  the  lines  on  which  our 
discussion  will  proceed  to-morrow  afternoon. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Gentlemen,  we  ought  to  come  to  an 
explanation  once  for  all  upon  our  methods  of  working.  I  have  just 
said  a  few  words  about  it  to  our  amiable  colleague,  Mr.  Baldesi,  so 
that  he  will  not  think  we  are  giving  way  to  a  wave  of  laziness  when 
we  ask  to  put  off  these  meetings;  but  really  we  do  not  get  away  from 
them;  those  who  are  on  several  committees  and  have  to  come  here  at 
the  same  time  to  discuss  certain  general  questions  will  be  laid  up 
before  the  end  of  the  week.  If  you  have  no  pity  on  the  delegates, 
at  least  consider  the  quality  of  the  work  that  we  have  to  provide.  We 
really  have  no  time  to  work  outside  of  committee  meetings  and 
general  assemblies.  What  is  it  about?  It  is  about  the  8-hour  day, 
We  ought  to  have  sense  enough  to  give  the  necessary  time  to  that 
question  to  try  to  bring  it  to  a  successful  conclusion. 

They  have  accused  us,  the  employers’  delegates — not  here,  but  in 
certain  quarters — of  trying  to  throw  the  conference  into  confusion. 
This,  gentlemen,  is  a  calumny  against  which  I  protest  on  behalf  of 
my  colleagues  and  on  my  own  behalf.  We  wish,  after  earnest  work, 
to  reach  conclusions  which  will  bring  about  a  mutual  understanding 
between  the  employers’  group  and  the  workers’  group.  It  is  with 
precisely  that  in  view  that  we  ask  to  be  given  breathing  time. 

A  French  economist  has  said:  “There  is  that  which  is  seen  and 
that  which  is  not  seen.’’ 

Gentlemen,  the  same  thing  is  illustrated  in  the  conference. 

There  is  that  which  you  see — the  work  of  the  committees  and  the 
work  of  the  general  conference.  There  is  that  which  you  do  not  see — 
the  work  that  goes  on  behind  the  scenes,  the  same  as  in  the  corridors 
at  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  There  are  conferences  among  us,  the 
employers,  over  what  should  be  done,  for  we  must  agree  among  our¬ 
selves  before  coming  to  an  agreement  with  others;  we  must  first 
bring  about  definite  conclusions  among  ourselves  and  then  see  about 
the  possibility  of  agreeing  with  our  colleagues,  the  workmen.  All 
that  is  not  done  by  blowing  on  it.  I  am  sure  that  Dr.  Nolens  will  be 
of  my  opinion.  We  also  keenly  desire  to  come  to  an  understanding 
with  the  Government  representatives — whom  we  esteem  and  to 
whom  we  wish  to  show  all  due  deference. 

So  then,  please  do  not  put  a  false  interpretation  upon  the  delay 
which  we  request.  Believe  that  it  is  a  necessary  thing.  When  our 
chairman  (Mr.  Marjoribanks)  requested  until  Thursday  to  do  our 
work,  he  was  right.  You  granted  until  to-morrow.  If  we  are  kept, 
here  until  to-morrow  morning  by  committee  work — it  is  now  almost 
6  o’clock — what  do  you  expect  us  to  do?  Yesterday  evening  we 


40 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


worked  until  midnight,  and  to-day  we  were  late;  you  must  take  into 
account  the  physical  limitations.  I  repeat,  we  can  not  get  away 
from  them. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  suggest  that  I  can  explain 
that.  I  only  made  the  suggestion,  and  if  it  is  not  acceptable  to  the 
employers’  group,  of  course,  it  can  not  be  made  effective.  But  I 
think  Mr.  Guerin  said  this  morning  that  he  did  not  wish  to  be  in 
Washington  eternally,  and  it  was  to  enable  him  to  realize  that  wish 
that  I  made  the  suggestion  that  I  did. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Between  to-morrow  and  eternity  there 
is  some  distance.  I  should  be  very  glad  to  stay  a  long  time  in  Wash¬ 
ington,  but  really  not  eternally.  But  to  stay  a  day  or  two  to  do 
necessary  work,  that  is  another  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  suggestion  of  the  secretary  is  withdrawn. 
The  agenda  for  to-day  having  been  disposed  of,  may  I  ask  the  con¬ 
ference  to  what  time  it  desires  to  adjourn? 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  2.30  to-morrow. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Make  it  at  least  3  o’clock. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  many  as  favor  adjourning  to  2.30  to¬ 
morrow  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[The  secretary  then  counted  the  votes  of  those  in  favor.] 

Hands  down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

It  is  agreed  to  unanimously  that  the  conference  adjourn  until  2.30 
to-morrow  afternoon. 

[Whereupon  at  5.45  o’clock  p.  m.  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Wednesday,  November  5,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  L6vie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 
China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 


Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Raiael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 


France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  Tom  Shaw  (substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning) . 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Pans. 

Mr.  J.  Teigcn. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  I-  ederico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 


Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Miehaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindq.vist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Riifenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 


SEVENTH  SESSION— WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER  5,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.40  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B. 
Wilson,  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Your  secretary  will  read  some  correspond¬ 
ence  and  make  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  only  announcement  I  have 
to  make  is  to  suggest  that  the  committee  of  selection  should  meet 
immediately  after  this  sitting  in  the  Columbus  Room,  in  order  to 
examine  the  future  program  of  the  conference,  particularly  as  to 
meetings  of  commissions. 

The  Clerk.  Mr.  Grouitch,  delegate  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Serbs, 
Croats,  and  Slovenes,  is  unable  to  attend  and  has  sent  as  his  substi¬ 
tute  Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  I  moved  the  adjourn¬ 
ment  yesterday  in  order  that  the  employers  might  have  time  to 
consider  Mr.  Barnes’  clear  statement  of  fact  in  connection  with  the 
aims  and  ideals  of  the  organization  committee  in  drawing  up  a  draft 
convention  for  the  48-hour  week,  and  also  the  draft  convention  itself. 


I  should  like,  however,  to  preface  my  remarks  by  categorically 
stating  that  my  reason  for  moving  the  adjournment  was  not  to 
waste  time  but  to  be  in  a  position  to  put  before  this  conference  a 
constructive  proposal  which  had  received  the  approval  of  the  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  employers  and  which,  in  their  opinion,  would  facilitate 
and  quicken  the  work  of  this  conference. 

We  felt  that  the  draft  convention  did  not  fully  meet  the  present 
conditions  under  which  both  employers  and  workpeople  must  work, 
in  order  to  make  good  the  shortage  of  food  supplies  and  the  recon¬ 
struction  of  devastated  areas  and  the  replacement  of  machinery,  so 
as  to  enable  us  to  return  to  a  normal  state  of  working  as  soon  as 
possible,  and  we  feel  that  it  is  essential  for  all  parties,  for  countries, 
for  employers,  for  workpeople,  to  have  these  conditions  clearly 
defined,  so  as  to  realize  the  position  we  are  at  present  in,  and,  in 
consequence,  I  propose  shortly  to  read  the  proposals  we  have  drafted. 

But  before  doing  so  I  should  like  to  apologize  to  you,  sir,  and  to 
the  members  of  this  conference.  On  account  of  the  short  time  at 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


41 


our  disposal,  and  in  spite  of  the  zeal  of  some  of  our  members  who  were 
working  up  till  midnight  last  night  in  preparing  this  draft,  it  has  been 
impossible  to  place  the  draft  in  the  hands  of  the  secretariat  early 
enough  to  allow  copies  to  be  run  off  for  each  of  the  members  of  this 
conference  to  have  them  in  their  hands  this  afternoon.  It  was  for 
that  reason  that  I  suggested  yesterday  an  adjournment  until  to-morrow 
morning.  Also  owing  to  the  difficulty  arising  from  having  only 
recently  met  each  other  and  the  very  limited  accommodations  at 
our  disposal,  it  takes  somewhat  longer  than  it  may  later  to  arrive  at 
decisions.  Our  proposals — and  you  will  see  by  them  that  we  loyally 
accept  the  principles  of  a  48-hour  week — are  as  follows: 

Resolved,  To  accomplish  the  high  mission  of  securing  social  peace  which  has 
been  intrusted  to  it  by  the  Treaty  of  Versailles,  the  International  Labor  Confer¬ 
ence  is  of  the  opinion  that  any  legitimate  eflort  toward  the  betterment  of  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  workers  necessarily  involves  the  favorable  consideration  of  every 
measure  for  limiting  the  number  of  hours  of  work  in  industrial  establishments. 

Taking  into  consideration,  however,  the  loss  of  balance  between 
production  and  human  requirements  caused  by  the  devastation 
and  the  loss  of  millions  of  human  lives  brought  about  by  the  war 
the  progressive  increase  in  the  cost  of  living  would  lead  to  disaster 
if  the  needs  of  the  present  situation  were  not  considered  in  conjunc¬ 
tion  with  the  aims  of  the  representatives  of  labor. 

Moreover,  we  have  to  consider  agreements  which  have  been  mu¬ 
tually  and  constitutionally  agreed  to  in  various  countries  between 
the  organizations  of  employers  and  workers,  as  well  as  the  legis¬ 
lation  enforced  in  the  most  important  countries.  The  conference, 
whilst  admitting  the  principle  of  the  limitation  of  daily  work  to 
eight  hours,  or  to  a  48-hour  week,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  realiza¬ 
tion  of  this  measure  is  subject  to  the  following  conditions: 

1.  A  guaranty  that  all  industries  shall  work  to  their  fullest  normal 
capacity . 

2.  Unanimous  agreement  to  maintain  and  increase  output. 

3.  The  adoption  of  provisional  measures  which  will  enable  speedy 
production  and  normal  distribution  in  those  industries  the  main¬ 
tenance  and  operation  of  which  are  indispensable  to  the  economic 
life  of  the  nations  of  the  world. 

4.  The  adoption  of  special  systems  which  will  hasten  relief  in  the 
industrial  districts  devastated  during  the  war. 

The  International  Labor  Conference,  while  recommending  to  all 
countries  the  enactment  of  general  legislation  fixing  the  8-hour  day 
or  the  48-hour  week,  suggests  the  following  essential  conditions  to 
be  adhered  to: 

1.  The  term  “working  day”  means  a  period  of  actual  work. 

2.  The  laws  and  agreements  which  will  be  made  as  a  result  of  the 
application  of  this  system  may  entail  for  various  districts  of  the 
various  industries  the  same  basis  of  work,  based  on  a  different 
period  of  time,  such  as  a  week,  a  fortnight,  or  a  month,  and  for  in¬ 
dustries  subject  to  weather  or  seasons  of  the  year,  the  year  may  be 
taken  as  the  unit.  In  these  cases  if  the  actual  duration  of  work 
exceeds  eight  hours  the  average  number  of  daily  hours  over  the 
period  in  question  shall  equal  eight  hours  per  day,  subject  to  the 
following  reservations: 

3.  Special  conditions  have  to  be  considered  in  regard  to  inter¬ 
mittent  work  and  with  regard  to  workers  engaged  either  in  special 
occupations  or  in  work  which  is  done  after  working  hours. 

4.  Special  consideration  must  be  given  to  work  executed  by  order 
of  an  official  authority,  in  the  interests  of  national  defense,  to  main¬ 
tain  public  services,  and  in  connection  with  urgent  work  the  execu¬ 
tion  of  which  is  imperative  either  to  prevent  or  to  repair  accidents 
which  might  stop  work. 

5.  The  limit  of  48  hours  per  week  or  8  hours  per  day  may  be  ex¬ 
ceeded  and  extended  to  a  maximum  of  an  average  week  of  56  hours 
in  those  industries  where  continuous  processes  are  carried  out  by 
successive  shifts. 

6.  Industries  subject  to  changes  of  weather  or  which  are  because  of 
unforeseen  circumstances  subject  to  periods  of  enforced  idleness  will 
have  special  regulations  enabling  them  to  make  good  for  the  loss  of 
time  arising  from  such  enforced  idleness.  And  with  suitable  con¬ 
trol  this  will  apply  also  in  cases  of  idleness  arising  from  “force 
majeure.” 


7.  Where  the  character  or  nature  of  the  work  demands,  the  legis¬ 
lation,  or  agreements  made  between  employers  and  workers  may 
extend  the  duration  of  a  working  day  beyond  eight  hours,  it  being 
understood  that  the  authorized  maximum  of  additional  hours  per 
year  should  not  exceed  300. 

The  International  Labor  Office  may,  in  exceptional  cases,  and 
pending  the  restoration  of  normal  conditions  of  production,  call  for 
international  agreements  to  make  further  exceptions  in  favor  of 
certain  industries,  the  products  of  which  are  part  of  the  necessary 
food  supply  and  for  transport  by  land  and  water.  The  duration  of 
these  exceptions  must  be  strictly  limited  and  in  no  case  shall  they 
exceed  five  years. 

With  a  view  to  effecting  speedy  reconstruction  of  industry  in  the 
devastated  areas,  the  International  Labor  Conference  recommends 
deferring  the  enforcement  of  the  8-hour  day  or  48-hour  week  for  a 
period  of  five  years  in  all  cases  where  this  limitation  of  the  duration 
of  work  is  recognized  as  hindering  the  restoration  of  these  districts. 

Such  a  measure  may  be  taken — 

(a)  By  legislation  in  those  countries  where  the  enforcement  of 
the  new  conditions  of  labor  is  fixed  by  law. 

( b )  By  agreement  between  employers  and  workers  in  those 
countries  where  legislation  permits  of  such  agreements,  in  which 
case  the  date  of  enforcement  will  be  mutually  agreed  upon. 

The  enforcement  of  the  present  recommendations  in  those  coun¬ 
tries  which  have,  up  to  the  present  moment,  adhered  to  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference  is  dependent  upon  the  formal  acceptance 
by  the  following  countries:  Austria,  Belgium,  Canada,  Cuba, 
Czecho-Slovakia,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Great  Britain,  Japan, 
India,  Italy,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switzer¬ 
land,  and  the  United  States,  at  the  date  fixed  by  the  signatories 
and  not  later  than  January  1,  1921. 

As  regards  the  general  exceptions  granted  on  account  of  climatic 
conditions,  incomplete  development  of  industrial  organization,  or 
other  special  circumstances  affecting  the  efficiency  of  the  workers, 
as  indicated  in  article  405  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles,  such  an  excep¬ 
tion  may  not  be  claimed  in  any  legislation  with  reference  to  export 
industries. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  may  the  Chair  get  a  clear 
understanding  of  just  what  the  parliamentary  purpose  of  your  motion 
is.  whether  it  is  an  amendment  or  a  substitute?  The  Chair  did  not 
get  just  what  the  purpose  was. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman,  what  I 
desire  by  this  proposal  is  that  these  proposals  may  be  considered  as 
an  alternative,  or  at  the  same  time  as  the  draft  convention,  as  in  our 
opinion  they  deal  with  all  the  questions  that  are  likely  to  arise  in  the 
various  countries  from  the  adoption  of  a  48-hour  week,  and  they  deal, 
we  think,  with  certain  items  that  have  been  overlooked  in  the  draft 
convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  from  the  Netherlands  it 
recognized. 

Mr.  VERKADE  (Netherlands).  Mr.  Marjoribanks  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  his  address  has  said  that  the  draft  convention  which  he  has 
just  been  reading  to  you  was  agreed  upon  by  all  the  employers.  I 
wish  to  state,  especially  as  an  employer  delegate  of  the  Netherlandss 
that  we  did  not  sign  this  agreement,  and  that  we  therefore  do  no, 
agree  with  it. 

I  have  not  said  that  they  have  no  interest,  but  I  say  this  conven¬ 
tion  was  read  to  us  this  morning,  and  Mr.  Marjoribanks  has  said  we 
agreed  to  it — all  the  employers.  I  wish  to  state  especially  that  I,  as 
a  delegate  of  the  employers  of  the  Netherlands,  do  not  agree  to  it, 
and  that  we  did  not  sign  it.  I  have  not  signed  this  convention  and 
therefore  do  not  agree  with  it.  I  have  not  signed  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Rufenacht,  the  Swiss  delegate,  is  recog¬ 
nized. 

Mr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  allow  me  in  my  capacity  as  Government  delegate  from 
the  Swiss  Confederation,  to  make  the  following  observations 

You  have  in  your  hands  a  report  explaining  Swiss  legislation  in 
regard  to  the  matter  in  question,  and  the  attitude  of  the  Swiss 


42 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Government  on  the  resolutions  of  the  organizing  committee.1  Some 
supplementary  information  is  necessary  however. 

Since  the  questionnaire  was  originally  filled  out  the  Swiss  Govern¬ 
ment  fixed  the  hours  of  labor  in  the  transport  industries,  at  first  pro¬ 
visionally,  and  later  submitted  a  bill  to  the  legislature  looking  to  a 
final  settlement.  Moreover,  the  legislature  passed  a  law  in  June 
establishing  a  Federal  bureau  of  labor  statistics,  and  enabling  the 
authorities,  under  certain  limitations,  to  fix  labor  conditions,  in¬ 
cluding  hours  of  work  even  for  those  industries  which  are  not  under 
the  provisions  of  any  Federal  law.  This  does  not  include  commerce. 
It  is  true,  however,  that  this  law  has  not  yet  come  into  force  because 
it  is  being  submitted  to  the  people  for  referendum.  In  pursuing 
this  course  of  action  Switzerland  is  respecting  her  traditions  regard¬ 
ing  the  protection  of  labor. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  has  been  more  than  a  century  (1815)  since 
the  Swiss  Cantons  of  St.  Gall  and  Zurich  promulgated  the  first 
regulations  with  regard  to  child  labor  in  certain  factories.  The  first 
law  on  the  hours  of  labor  for  all  classes  of  factory  workers  was  adopted 
over  50  years  ago  by  the  Canton  of  Glarus.  This  same  law  established 
the  first  system  of  factory  inspection  for  Switzerland.  The  pro¬ 
tective  tendency  in  Swiss  legislation  should  be  observed,  because 
even  before  the  war  Swiss  industry  was  subjected  to  very  unfavorable 
conditions  considering  its  dependence  on  foreign  countries  for  raw 
materials,  and  the  fact  that  it  had  a  very  restricted  market  within 
the  country  itself.  But  Switzerland  has  not  confined  herself  to 
improving  her  domestic  legislation.  From  the  first  she  has  felt 
that  advantage  should  be  taken  of  her  geographical  position  in 
Europe  and  that  she  should  profit  by  her  relations  with  her  neighbors 
in  working  but  an  international  entente.  Ever  since  the  Alsatian, 
Daniel  LeGrand,  first  proclaimed  his  idea  of  international  labor 
legislation  over  60  years  ago,  that  idea  has  been  repeatedly  taken  up 
by  the  Swiss  authorities. 

In  1890  the  Federal  Council  proposed  holding  an  international 
conference,  but  gave  priority  in  tne  matter  to  Germany,  as  a  matter 
of  courtesy,  inasmuch  as  Germany  had  at  the  same  time  conceived 
the  same  idea.  It  was  on  the  initiative  of  the  Swiss  authorities, 
however,  that  international  conferences  were  convened  at  Bern  in 
1905  and  1913.  The  first  of  these  conferences  resulted  in  conventions 
limiting  night  work  for  women  and  prohibiting  the  use  of  white 
phosphorous  in  the  manufacture  of  matches.  The  second  resulted 
in  proposals  referring  to  the  work  of  women  and  children. 

If  I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  mentioning  these  facts  and  dates, 
it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  lauding  my  own  country,  but  simply  to 
explain  that  Switzerland  is  merely  being  faithful  to  her  traditions 
in  supporting  with  her  feeble  force  every  action  tending  toward 
international  protection  of  labor.  Inasmuch  as  I  believe  that  we 
shall  come  more  quickly  to  a  definite  decision  and  a  satisfactory 
solution  by  accepting  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes,  I  have  the  honor  to 
support  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Schindler  is  recognized. 

Mr.  SCHINDLER  (Switzerland).  I  wish  to  state  that  the  Swiss 
employers’  delegates  have  accepted  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Majori- 
banks  and  have  signed  it,  together  with  the  great  majority  of  their 
colleagues. 

I  propose  that  this  motion  of  the  employers  together  with  all  those 
referring  to  the  same  subject  be  put  into  the  hands  of  a  commission 
for  consideration. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Baroni  of  Italy  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BARONI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  As  representative  of 
the  employers  of  Italy  I  wish  to  state  that  I  have  not  signed  the  pro¬ 
posals  submitted  to-day  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks.  In  Italy  the  8-hour 
day  is  already  an  accomplished  fact  in  all  industries,  including  agri¬ 
culture.  A  bill  is  now  before  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  for  giving 
the  arrangement  which  will  be  made  to  this  effect  between  employers 
and  employees  the  force  of  law.  The  bill  will  undoubtedly  be 
approved. 

1  Refers  to  the  reports  of  the  organizing  committee  printed  separately  in  London 
and  circulated  in  advance  of  the  Conference.  [Editor.] 


The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux  is  recognized. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  speak  for  all  the  labor  delegates  here 
present.  As  far  as  the  labor  delegates  are  concerned  it  is  simply  a 
matter  of  raising  the  question  and  not  of  entering  into  discussion  of 
the  basic  principles  involved. 

According  to  the  decision  of  the  conference  yesterday  afternoon, 
the  labor  delegates  wish  to  inquire  if  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion  is  limited — 
if  it  excludes  all  amendments  on  the  8-hour  day  and  involves 
simply  a  general  discussion  of  the  48-hour  week.  There  was  an  ex¬ 
change  of  view  on  this  subject  this  morning,  in  the  course  of  which 
private  points  of  view  were  set  forth  by  different  labor  delegates. 
There  is  no  need  here  of  emphasizing  the  fact  that  the  labor  point  of 
view  differs  considerably  from  the  proposals  which  have  just  been 
read,  nor  do  I  wish  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the  proposals  made 
by  the  employers.  I  believe  that  the  proposals  which  have  been 
made  can  constitute  only  a  basis  for  general  discussion,  and  that  im¬ 
portant  concessions  will  probably  be  made  according  to  the  direction 
of  progress.  If  such  is  not  the  case,  however,  if  we  have  to  accept  the 
proposals  as  the  actual  terms  of  the  international  convention,  then 
the  labor  point  of  view  is  opposed  to  them. 

In  the  discussions  which  have  taken  place,  the  labor  delegates, 
following  tradition  and  with  their  usual  insistence,  have  affirmed 
the  necessity  of  making  a  definite  point  of  the  8-hour  day  in  the  in¬ 
ternational  convention,  and  at  the  same  time  have  given  their  opin¬ 
ion  on  the  48-hour  week.  However,  that  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48- 
hour  week  have  been  considered  as  the  maximum,  the  labor  dele¬ 
gates  can  not  pass  over  in  silence.  In  all  countries,  among  the 
masses  of  workers,  it  is  not  simply  a  desire  to  obtain  the  8-hour  day,  or 
the  48-hour  week,  but  also  a  desire  to  enjoy  the  leisure  of  the  Saturday 
afternoon.  Here  is  an  aspiration  of  the  workers  that  must  not  go  un¬ 
recognized  in  such  a  conference  as  this.  It  is  not  simply  a  discussion 
of  things  material ;  it  is  not  a  question  of  injecting  arithmetic  into  the 
debate;  it  is  more  than  that;  it  is  a  consideration  of  the  whole  social 
situation.  We  do  not  wish  to  participate  in  an  international  conven¬ 
tion  which,  by  leaving  out  of  consideration  the  aspirations  of  the 
masses  of  laborers,  would  bring  ridicule  upon  our  work  and  our  de¬ 
bates,  and  would  brand  the  First  International  Conference  as  futile 
from  its  beginning. 

In  the  course  of  his  remarks  yesterday  Mr.  Barnes  said  that  it  was 
not  enough  to  consider  the  question  of  limiting  the  hours  of  work 
alone,  but  that  it  was  equally  essential  to  keep  in  mind  the  need  of 
production,  indispensable  not  only  to  the  life  of  all  humanity  but 
also  to  its  development  as  a  whole.  The  labor  delegates  have  no 
intention  of  losing  sight  of  this  essential  point;  but  we  wish  that  here 
for  the  first  time,  in  these  international  sessions,  it  may  be  clearly 
understood  that  production  does  not  depend  solely  on  the  presence 
of  labor  in  the  workshop,  but  on  the  organization  of  labor,  and  the 
improvement  of  machinery.  In  other  words,  we  wish  that  at  the 
beginning  of  its  work  the  conference  state  explicitly  that  it  has  done 
with  that  human  slavery  which  binds  the  laborer  to  his  factory;  and 
that  it  is  no  longer  the  human  machine  alone  which  determines  pro¬ 
duction,  but  also  the  development  of  machinery  and  the  rational 
organization  of  labor.  [Applause.] 

Moreover,  in  drawing  up  the  international  convention  we  must  also 
take  into  account  the  body  of  labor  legislation  already  existing  in 
certain  countries,  and  especially  the  advances  made  by  the  workers 
in  certain  countries. 

It  is  for  these  essential  reasons,  and  in  order  that  the  work  of  the 
conference  may  be  effective  that  the  labor  delegates  have  agreed  to 
propose  the  following  amendment  with  regard  to  this  first  point: 

The  draft  convention  concerning  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  as  maxima, 
drafted  by  the  organizing  committee,  is  adopted  by  the  conference  as  a  basis 
of  discussion. 

With  regard  to  the  second  point  of  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion,  we  do  not 
object  to  the  appointment  of  a  special  commission.  We  believe 
that  naturally  there  are  points  of  view  which  should  be  given  careful 
consideration,  and  situations  which  require  a  more  thorough  exam¬ 
ination  than  we  can  give  in  the  course  of  a  general  discussion.  But 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


43 


although  we  agree  to  the  appointment  of  a  commission,  we  make 
reservations  in  advance  on  the  names  of  the  countries  which  may- 
have  been  excepted  in  the  discussion  yesterday,  as  well  as  on  the 
names  of  those  which  may  have  been  in  the  minds  of  certain  dele¬ 
gates.  We  believe  that  this  question  should  be  carefully  and 
thoroughly  discussed,  and  that  we  can  not  make  a  final  decision  on 
the  particular  motions  which  will  be  submitted  to  us  until  after 
such  discussion  has  taken  place. 

I  think  I  may  state  to  the  conference  that  this  morning,  after  the 
discussions  on  this  very  point,  the  labor  delegate  from  Japan  asserted 
that  he  did  not  intend  Ms  country  to  be  excluded  from  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week;  that  it  would  be  contrary 
to  the  Japanese  labor  interests,  and  that  they  would  protest  in 
advance.  You  see  there  are  various  points  of  view  which  should  be 
given  expression  during  the  discussions  of  this  commission;  nor  can 
we  say  until  after  this  discussion  has  taken  place  whether  there  are 
exceptions  to  be  made,  which  should  be  adopted  for  certain  countries, 
or  determine  the  methods  of  application  of  the  principle  which  we 
wish  to  be  universal.  Following  is  the  complete  amendment  pro¬ 
posed  by  the  labor  delegates: 

The  draft  convention  concerning  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  as  maxima, 
drafted  by  the  organizing  committee,  is  adopted  by  the  conference  as  a  basis  for 
discussion.  The  question  of  applying  this  draft  to  tropica!  countries  and  other 
•countries  mentioned  in  paragraph  3  of  articlo  405  of  the  treaty  shall  be  referred 
to  a  special  commission  for  investigation,  which  shall  report  on  the  matter  to  the 
conference. 

You  see  the  labor  delegates  have  simply  proposed  an  amendment 
to  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Barnes,  as  they  considered  his  first  point 
of  capital  importance,  and  one  which  should  be  definitely  fixed 
before  a  general  discussion  takes  place.  With  that  purpose  and  with¬ 
out  any  desire  to  enter  into  an  examination  of  the  proposals  made  by 
the  employers  we  offer  our  amendment.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mgr.  Nolens  of  Netherlands  is  recognized. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President,  lam  not  author¬ 
ized  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the  other  Government  delegates.  I  speak 
for  myself,  but  I  believe  that  I  speak  also  for  the  whole  Dutch 
delegation. 

I  must  say  that  from  time  to  time  we  meet  with  surprises.  This 
morning  I  read  on  the  agenda  “  At  2.30  a  full  meeting.  Continuation 
of  the  general  discussion  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week.” 
Hence  I  concluded  that  an  agreement  had  been  reached  on  the  first 
part  of  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion,  and  that  it  had  been  understood  that  it 
was  impossible  to  confine  our  discussion  to  the  48-hour  week. 

All  the  more  so  because  (a  matter  that  escaped  my  notice  yester¬ 
day)  the  report  itself  of  the  committee  ran  as  follows,  page  3- 

The  treaty  submits  to  the  consideration  of  the  conference  two  proposals,  either  one 
•of  which  may  be  adopted:  The  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week. 

1  also  reread  the  preamble  to  part  13  of  the  peace  treaty,  which 
among  other  things  gave  the  maximum  duration  of  the  working  day 
and  the  working  week.  After  reading  that  afresh  I  said  to  myself: 
“Mr.  Barnes  has  made  a  mistake.  The  matter  has  been  cleared  up, 
however,  and  now  the  discussion  will  be  continued  on  the  basis  of 
the  draft  of  the  committee.  We  shall  have  a  general  discussion  first, 
motions  will  be  made  by  members  and  then  amendments  at  the  end 
of  the  general  discussion.” 

We  shall  study  the  motions,  and  by  considering  the  different  parts 
of  the  draft  of  the  committee  we  shall  have  an  opportunity  of  defend¬ 
ing  the  amendments  and  voting  on  them. 

Mr.  President,  I  see  I  was  mistaken.  Now,  if  I  have  rightly  under¬ 
stood  the  lengthy  proposals  of  the  employers — not  of  all  of  them, 
either,  as  some  took  exception — it  is  now  proposed  to  conduct  our 
discussion  on  a  different  basis. 

Mr.  President,  1  will  be  brief;  I  will  not  go  deep  into  the  matter 
with  which  we  are  now  concerned.  I  will  not  even  discuss  the  ques¬ 
tion.  I  only  want  to  say,  in  agreement  with  all  the  delegates  from 
•our  country,  that  I  desire  to  support  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Jou- 
haux.  I  had  also  considered  separating  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion,  amend¬ 
ing  the  first  part,  and  then  referring  the  questions  in  the  last  part  to 
a  committee  for  investigation. 


Mr.  President,  one  word  more  on  the  way  I  look  upon  this  con¬ 
ference.  This  is  not  an  industrial  conference,  it  is  not  a  conference 
between  employers  and  employees,  nor  is  it  primarily  for  the  purpose 
of  settling  disputed  points,  although  if  that  can  be,  so  much  the  better. 
The  chief  object  of  this  conference  is  to  put  into  execution  the  idea 
of  the  League  of  Nations. 

A  Member  of  the  French  Delegation.  Hear!  hear! 

Mgr.  NOLENS.  We  are  here  as  the  delegates  of  present  or  future 
members  of  the  League  of  Nations.  For  my  part,  I  do  not  consider 
myself  merely  a  representative  of  my  Government,  but  as  one  of  the 
representatives  of  the  members  of  the  League  of  Nations.  In  that 
capacity,  Mr.  President,  if  there  is  still  anyone  who  wishes  to  appoint 
a  commission  to  consider  the  principle  of  the  eight-hour  day,  I 
should  like  to  couple  such  a  motion  with  one  to  appoint  a  committee 
for  the  discovery  of  America.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  A  committee  for  the  discovery  of  America 
might  not  he  altogether  useless  here. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  This  is  the  position  in  which  we 
now  find  ourselves,  employers,  employees, and  Government  dele¬ 
gates.  Employers,  employees,  or  Government  delegates,  no  matter 
what  our  position,  no  distinction  should  be  made  between  us.  We 
are  all  here  as  representatives  of  present  or  future  members  of  the 
League  of  Nations.  It  is  this  League  of  Nations — I  do  not  want  to 
go  over  all  the  articles  of  the  peace  treaty  which  you  all  know — - 
wMch  on  various  occasions  has  bound  itself  by  declarations  on 
this  subject,  and  in  the  same  way  we  also  are  bound  specifically 
by  part  13  of  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  well  as  gener¬ 
ally  by  the  implications,  the  import,  the  prospect  and  the  promises 
contained  in  these  different  articles  and  in  the  preamble  to  part  13. 

It  is  for  tMs  reason,  Mr.  President — forgive  me  if  I  allow  myself 
to  be  carried  away  by  this  subject,  I  shall  be  more  calm  presently — 
it  is  for  this  reason,  that  I  desire  to  say  that  not  only  myself  as  repre¬ 
sentative  of  my  Government  and  the  future  League  of  Nations,  but 
that  also  the  employer  and  employee  delegates  from  my  country 
will  all  vote  against  any  motion  wMch  is  not  in  harmony  with  the 
stipulations  of  the  League  of  Nations.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  I  venture  to  differ  slightly  from  Mgr. 
Nolens. 

What  did  the  League  of  Nations  want,  or,  rather,  what  did  its  pro¬ 
moters  want?  To  bring  about  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  strife,  the 
differences  and  the  conflicts  wMch  have  hitherto  raged  between  em¬ 
ployers  and  workers.  And  what  is  the  means  to  wMch  the  promoters 
of  the  League  of  Nations  have  recourse?  Evidently  this,  to  gather 
together  at  the  same  time  in  conferences  representatives  of  the 
Governments,  of  the  employers,  and  of  the  workers,  so  that  each  of 
these  groups  may  make  its  voice  heard,  and  that  the  representatives 
of  these  various  interests  may  come  to  an  agreement  and  find  a  fair 
compromise  which  will  permit  of  that  peaceful  solution  which  these 
promoters  had  in  mind  and  desired.  Well,  we  now  have  before  us 
a  proposal  contained  in  the  documents  of  the  conference,  and  this 
proposal  emanates  from  an  official  source,  if  I  may  say  so.  In  our 
turn,  we  bring  forward  a  proposal  emanating  from  the  employers. 
Mr.  Jouhaux  tells  us  that  he  supports  in  part  the  proposal  set  forth 
by  the  Governments,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  by  doing  what  we 
have  done,  we  have  performed  our  duty  exactly  as  required. 

We  have  been  asked  to  present  our  ideas,  and  we  have  done  so. 
You  say  to  us,  or  you  will  say:  “You  might  have  brought  them  for¬ 
ward  sooner.”  I  ask  your  pardon  a  thousand  times,  and  in  my  turn 
I  accept,  as  my  friend  and  colleague,  Mr.  Gu6rin,  did  yesterday,  the 
reproach  against  us  for  not  having  expressed  our  views  earlier  and 
more  speedily. 

Gentlemen,  we  are  assembled  here,  the  representatives  of  30  or 
32  countries.  As  for  the  employers,  we  are  20  in  number.  We  all 
come  from  different  parts  of  the  world,  speak  different  languages, 
and  our  point  of  view  is  not  always  exactly  the  same.  This 
must  be  obvious  to  you;  you  see  it  in  all  the  discussions  wMch  have 
developed.  We  must  express  ourselves,  or,  if  I  may  say  so,  translate 
our  thought  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  understood  by  our  col¬ 
leagues.  We  have  been  here  as  yet  scarcely  a  week;  could  we 


44 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


have  got  on  any  faster?  I  must  therefore  reject  most  energetically 
and  with  all  my  heart  the  accusation  which  has  been  brought  against 
us  that  we  are  obstructionists  and  that  we  are  too  dilatory.  We 
came  here  in  good  faith,  desirous  of  arriving  at  that  peaceful  solution 
which  was  longed  for  by  the  founders  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and 
we  can  not  permit  anyone  to  cast  suspicion  on  our  sincerity.  We 
are  square  and  honest,  and  the  workers  who  have  treated  with 
us  often  know  this  well.  [Applause.] 

I  say  that  our  workers  know  what  we  think  and  what  we  want) 
because  in  many  of  our  countries,  as  you  are  informed  by  the  state¬ 
ment  that  was  just  read  to  you  by  our  colleague  and  friend,  Mr. 
Marjoribanks,  agreements  have  hitherto  been  freely  concluded  and 
lived  up  to  in  good  faith  which  have  fixed  labor  conditions  by  trying 
to  adjust  the  necessities  of  both  parties  and  thus  arriving  at  a  solution 
acceptable  to  all.  That  is  what  we  have  done.  But  how  did  we 
do  it?  Was  it  in  large  meetings  where  everybody  was  called  in  and 
where  everybody  would  be  affected  by  all  the  excitement  of  an 
assembly  and  all  the  agitation  of  a  large  gathering?  Not  at  all. 
Mr.  Jouhaux  and  all  the  workers’  delegates  who  are  here  know  this 
as  well  as  I,  for  among  them  I  see  the  faces  of  more  than  one  nego¬ 
tiator  of  those  amicable  agreements. 

We  discussed  matters  with  each  other  calmly,  peacefully,  and  in 
all  seriousness,  and  we  did  not  allow  ourselves  to  excite  one  another. 
Well,  we  want  to  bring  you  to  precisely  such  a  fruitful  and  effective 
method  of  procedure,  which  is  the  only  really  logical  one.  We 
request  informal  discussion  because  we  feel  sure  that  if  we  once 
more  find  ourselves  face  to  face,  as  we  have  been  in  the  past,  we  will 
rapidly  and  easily  arrive  on  common  ground.  It  is  certain  that 
after  finding  this  common  ground  so  quickly  we  can  lay  before  the 
conference  a  solution  which  I  am  convinced  it  will  ratify  promptly. 
We  shall  then  come  to  the  end  of  discussion  and  reach  a  solution  on 
this  first  point. 

Gentlemen,  Mr.  Jouhaux  made  a  statement  on  behalf  of  the  labor 
delegates  which  should  be  emphasized  in  the  record  and  for  which 
we  should  give  him  our  heartiest  thanks.  He  said  that  the  work¬ 
men  do  not  wish  to  decrease  the  amount  of  the  world’s  production, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  wish  to  have  it  augmented  in  every  possible 
way.  This  desire,  if  you  will  permit  me  to  say  so,  should  be  felt 
by  everyone  who  has  the  interest  of  humanity  at  heart  Mgr. 
Nolens,  as  becomes  his  character  and  station,  just  now  spoke  of  the 
future  of  humanity,  whose  betterment  is  at  stake.  Is  there  anything 
with  which  we  should  be  more  thoroughly  engrossed  than  with  the 
labor  situation  which  is  being  debated  by  the  whole  world  at  this 
time?  Each  day  the  cost  of  living  increases.  Each  day  people — - 
and  particularly  the  working  classes — are  asking  themselves  how 
they  are  going  to  meet  the  cost  of  living.  The  question  is,  how? 

Not  only  are  we  all  forced  to  pay  absurd  prices,  but  living  condi¬ 
tions  are  further  complicated  by  the  overwhelming  financial  bur¬ 
dens  which  will  have  to  be  supported  by  all  the  nations  of  the  world 
in  order  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  war.  As  we  said  not  long  ago, 
5,000,000  men  were  killed  during  the  war,  and  over  1,000,000,000 
machines  were  destroyed .  From  the  very  first  day  you  have  acclaimed 
Mr.  Guerin  as  the  representative  of  France,  when  you  have  recalled  the 
frightful  martyrdom  to  which  this  great  and  noble  country  has 
been  subjected.  Nor  can  we  ever  render  enough  homage  to  France. 
[Applause.]  Well,  Belgium  did  not  lag  behind,  and  if  you  will 
allow  a  Belgian  to  say  so,  Belgium  was  in  about  the  same  condition. 
Can  you  take  a  step  there  anywhere  without  finding  ruins  or 
without  realizing  the  necessity  of  making  tremendous  efforts  if 
things  are  to  be  restored.  Consequently  the  development  and 
increase  of  production  becomes  the  duty  of  each  one  of  us.  It  is 
the  greatest  obligation  God  has  put  upon  us.  I  repeat,  if  we  dimin¬ 
ish  our  efforts  it  will  lead  us  to  the  worst  catastrophes  in  the  world. 
I  am  happy  to  have  heard  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  statement  on  this  point 
and  I  thank  him. 

We  are  at  one  with  the  workers  as  to  the  necessity  of  increasing 
production.  Mr.  Jouhaux  thinks  that  this  increase  can  be  obtained 
by  machine  development  and  by  still  other  methods.  If  he  will 
allow  an  old  man  like  me  to  tell  him  so,  machinery  can  not  be  devel¬ 


oped  as  one  would  like,  tools  can  not  be  transformed  and  new  instru¬ 
ments  invented  in  a  day.  And  in  any  case  may  I  be  permitted  to  say 
that  industry  is  not  a  philanthropic  work,  nor  a  matter  of  parlor 
theorizing.  The  object  of  industry  is  to  create  products  for  sale  in 
the  hope  of  finding  purchasers.  If  production  does  not  take  place 
under  conditions  that  are  sufficiently  advantageous  for  finding  such 
purchasers,  then  such  industry  founders  and  is  ruined,  and  the  work¬ 
men  whom  it  has  employed  are  discharged,  thrown  out  of  work. 
These  are  absolute  facts  against  which  nothing  can  be  said  or  done. 

I  venture  to  say,  this  time  in  the  name  of  all  the  employers — 
I  feel  certain  that  not  one  will  contradict  me — that  every  one  of  us, 
in  his  factory,  in  his  business,  has  an  overwhelming  responsibility 
which  he  does  not  lose  sight  of  for  a  single  instant  and  which  imposes 
on  him  the  duty  of  maintaining  this  production,  not  only  for  him¬ 
self,  but  for  the  workmen  he  employs.  Now,  and  I  am  going  to  end 
here,  believe  me,  gentlemen  and  workers,  when  I  say  we  have  the 
same  aims  and  purposes.  We  can  only  achieve  the  wish  of  every¬ 
body  by  going  hand  in  hand.  And  we  want  to  do  this — we  want  to 
do  it  with  all  our  hearts.  We  ask  you  to  give  us  your  hands,  to  put 
your  hands  in  ours,  which  we  extend  to  you  loyally  and  sincerely, 
I  repeat,  like  honest  men  if  there  ever  were  such. 

That  is  why  I  have  just  asked  you  to  support,  and  why  I  myself 
support  with  all  my  strength,  the  proposal  of  our  honorable  colleague 
from  Switzerland,  asking  that  the  matter  be  placed  in  the  hands  of 
a  commission  in  such  a  way  that  we  may  be  brought  more  closely 
together,  and  that  we  may  arrive  more  quickly  at  a  happy  solution. 

I  will  add  one  word,  and  one  only.  Do  you  not  find  a  certain 
contradiction  in  your  attitude,  Mr.  Jouhaux?  On  one  hand  you 
put  the  question  with  regard  to  those  countries  which  you  consider 
sufficiently  strong,  and  on  the  other  hand  you  want  a  commission 
to  consider  the  question  with  regard  to  those  countries  which  in  your 
eyes  are  relatively  less  strong.  Are  you  not  afraid  that  when  these 
relatively  weaker  countries  find  that  they  are  excepted  for  a  cer¬ 
tain  number  of  years,  their  competition  with  our  own  industries  will 
be  all  the  stronger,  and  that  as  a  result  your  lot  and  ours  will  be  much 
wTorse  than  before? 

This  concludes  what  I  have  to  say,  and  I  ask  the  pardon  of  the 
conference  for  taking  a  few  moments  of  its  time.  Mr.  Jouhaux 
kindly  admitted  yesterday  that  I  did  not  speak  often,  and  I  promise 
to  continue  to  deserve  his  praise.  I  shall  not  speak  often,  but  for 
this  once  I  wanted  to  say  all  that  was  on  my  heart.  I  thank  you 
for  listening  to  me.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Gompers,  of  the  United  States  delega¬ 
tion,  is  recognized.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  GOMPERS  (United  States).  Mr.  Chairman,  ladies,  and  gen¬ 
tlemen,  with  the  report  or  statement  made  by  Mr.  Jouhaux,  on 
behalf  of  the  representatives  of  labor,  in  so  far  as  his  statement 
upon  that  subject  is  concerned,  I  am  in  full  accord,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  other  duties  of  a  most  important  character  interfered 
with  my  presence  at  that  meeting  this  morning,  when  that  attitude 
and  position  were  taken.  The  only  purpose  that  I  have  in  rising, 
therefore,  is  to  supplement  what  Mr.  Jouhaux  said,  with  some  ob¬ 
servations  upon  the  entire  subject,  not  only  as  it  is,  in  its  concrete 
form,  before  this  conference,  but  also  as  to  some  of  the  declarations 
made  here  this  afternoon. 

First,  let  me  say  that,  so  far  as  discussing  the  question  of  the  length 
of  the  workday  is  concerned,  unless  the  eight-hour  day,  under  normal 
conditions,  shall  be  the  maximum  of  the  day’s  labor,  you  might  as 
well  abandon  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  for  labor  of  America  and 
labor  of  Europe  and  labor  of  all  countries,  which  has  some  intelli¬ 
gence  and  understanding,  will  not  consent  to  a  workday  longer  than 
eight  hours  in  each  day. 

But  quite  apart  from  that  declaration,  I  was  very  much  interested 
in  listening  to  the  declaration  made  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  as  repre¬ 
senting  the  views  and  the  declarations  of  the  employers.  Ladies 
and  gentlemen,  I  think  that  the  time  for  w'hat  we  call  in  the  United 
States  “pussy-footing”  is  past,  and  the  time  for  plain  speaking  has 
arrived.  What  is  the  declaration  made  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks  on 
behalf  of  the  employers  of  the  various  countries?  Is  it  in  conformity 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


45 


with  the  concept  of  the  labor  draft  convention  or  the  agenda?  Is  it 
within  the  spirit  of  the  League  of  Nations?  Is  it  intended — is  that 
draft  convention  intended  to  go  back  to  the  conditions  worse  than 
they  are  to-day? 

The  committee  for  international  labor  legislation  at  Paris,  the 
committee  created  by  the  peace  commissioners  of  the  allied  and  asso¬ 
ciated  Governments,  adopted  a  preamble  setting  forth  that  the 
purpose  of  this  draft  convention  and  the  organization  of  interna¬ 
tional  labor  is  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  moral,  material,  and 
social  condition  and  standards  of  the  working  people  of  the  whole 
civilized  world. 

That  was  the  purpose  as  set  forth  in  the  preamble  and  carried  out 
in  the  draft  convention  itself  and  supplemented  by  the  agenda. 
And  with  some  slight  modifications  that  draft  convention,  the  work 
of  that  committee,  was  incorporated  bodily  in  the  peace  treaty  at  Ver¬ 
sailles.  At  the  meetings  of  the  committee  there  arose  some  question 
as  to  the  make-up,  not  only  of  the  personnel,  but  also  of  the  representa¬ 
tives  in  the  international  labor  conferences;  and  the  proposal  was 
for  two  from  the  Government,  one  from  the  representatives  of  the 
employers,  and  one  from  the  representatives  of  workers  of  each  coun¬ 
try.  There  were  some  of  us  who  advocated  the  principle  of  one 
Government  representative,  one  employers’  representative,  and 
one  labor  representative.  I  remember  the  argument  that  was  made 
against  those  who  proposed  one,  one,  one.  It  was  this:  The  em¬ 
ployers  and  the  workers  will  act  in  collusion  against  the  Government. 
You  have  heard  the  demonstration  of  that  collusion  this  afternoon. 

The  declaration  of  Mr.  Marjoribanks  for  the  employers  contains 
something  like  this — as  my  memory  may  serve  me  and  from  a  memo¬ 
randum  that  I  have  made — that  while  employers  recognize  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  48-hour  week,  in  practice  they  are  opposed  to  it. 

The  charge  of  limitation  of  output  against  workers  is  only  inci¬ 
dental  and  a  repetition  of  that  which  we  hear  from  employers  every¬ 
where.  The  statement  that  employers  shut  down  their  factories 
and  establishments  for  the  purpose  of  exploiting  the  people  through 
unfair  profits  is  not  referred  to.  The  limitation  and  restriction  of 
output  on  the  part  of  employers  is  direct  rather  than  that  attributed, 
so  unjustly  attributed,  to  labor. 

If  I  quote  correctly,  among  the  proposals  of  the  employers  of  the 
various  countries,  and  as  read  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  it  is  not  only 
permissible  under  certain  conditions  to  work  56  hours  a  week,  but 
also  under  certain  circumstances  300  extra  hours  of  work  a  year  may 
be  imposed  on  the  toilers,  at  least  not  more  than  300  hours;  and  then 
the  proviso  is  that  further  exceptions  may  be  made  so  that  additional 
hours  may  be  imposed. 

I  have  been  connected  with  the  efforts  of  the  workers  to  secure 
improved  conditions  of  labor.  I  have  had  innumerable  conferences 
with  employers,  both  individually  as  well  as  in  assemblages,  but  for 
the  first  time  in  my  life  it  is  suggested  that  the  work  period  be 
calculated  not  upon  the  week,  the  month,  but  upon  the  year 
basis.  In  other  words,  the  employers  could,  if  they  wanted 
to,  if  Mr.  Marjoribanks ’s  suggestion  should  be  adopted,  work 
the  employees  168  days  in  each  year  16  hours  a  day  and  let  the 
workmen  go  idle  for  the  balance  of  the  year.  I  do  not  presume  that 
that  was  in  the  minds  of  the  employers  when  they  adopted  that 
declaration,  but  that  construction  is  inescapable. 

I  may  say,  speaking  for  the  men  and  women  of  labor  whom  I 
know  in  America,  we  are  as  much  opposed  to  that  idea  as  we  would 
be  to  any  proposition  of  that  or  similar  character;  and  I  may  say, 
too,  that  the  48-hour  week  is  not  one  that  will  suit  the  views  of 
American  labor.  We  want  the  8-hour  day  and  we  want  the  Satur¬ 
day  half  holiday,  and  when  we  say  the  8-hour  day  we  say  it  as  a 
maximum  workday.  Of  course,  we  understand,  too,  that  there  are 
emergencies  which  arise  and  which  necessitate  the  performance  of 
labor.  No  man  in  his  sane  mind  will  interpose  objection  to  work¬ 
ing  under  such  extraordinary  conditions.  These  conditions  must  be 
recognized,  and  work  must  morally  and  willingly  and  voluntarily 
be  performed  to  meet  such  an  emergency.  , 

There  is  something  not  yet  understood,  even  by  employers — in  the 
countries  represented  in  this  conference,  anyway — and  that  is  that 


a  long  workday  does  not  yield  the  greatest  product.  Our  friend 
from  Belgium  who  addressed  this  conference  just  preceding  me  said 
that  there  are  not  new  inventions  of  machinery  every  day.  Let  me 
call  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  can  go  to  the  Patent  Office  right 
here  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  he  will  find  that  there  are  more 
patents  every  day  than  he  can  count.  There  is  new  machinery 
being  invented,  and  new  tools,  new  devices,  and  new  applications 
of  force  and  power  to  drive  industry — machinery  for  industry  and 
transportation.  Let  me  call  attention  to  the  fact,  too,  that  wher¬ 
ever  you  find  the  hours  of  labor  longest,  there  you  will  find  the 
least  improvement  in  machinery  in  its  application  to  industry  and 
transportation,  and  that  wherever  the  hours  of  labor  are  shortest, 
there  you  will  find  the  largest  application  and  the  newest  inventions 
of  machinery  employed  in  industry  and  transportation  and  driven 
by  the  greatest  possible  known  force  of  the  time. 

It  is  a  fact,  which  all  history  of  industry  bears  out,  that  there  is 
more  produced  by  the  worker,  everything  else  being  equal,  in  an 
8-hour  day  than  in  a  9,  10,  or  12  hour  day.  I  want  to  repeat  that 
statement  if  I  may,  even  to  make  it  plainer  or  to  make  an  impression 
upon  your  minds,  that  everything  being  equal,  without  improved 
machinery,  without  any  additional  driving  force  or  power,  a  man, 
working  in  a  factory  or  any  other  establishment  8  hours  a  day  will 
produce  more  than  in  another  establishment  under  the  same  condi¬ 
tions,  if  the  workmen  in  that  establishment  work  10  or  12  hours  a 
day.  The  fact  is  that  if  you  want  the  best  that  is  in  a  workman  in 
the  least  possible  time,  then  work  him  about  48  hours  continuously 
and  he  will  be  “all  in.”  If  you  want  the  best  that  is  in  a  workman  for 
a  period  of  6,  or  8,  or  10  years,  you  will  work  him  10,  11,  or  12  hours 
a  day.  But  if  you  want  the  best  that  is  in  a  workman  covering  a 
long  period  of  years,  you  will  impose  no  longer  than  an  8-hour  day 
upon  him.  You  will  have  prolonged  his  life,  you  will  have  increased 
his  productivity,  you  will  make  him  more  of  a  man  as  a  citizen,  and 
you  will  make  of  him  a  far-seeing  and  progressive  man.  This  ques¬ 
tion  of  production,  the  men  of  labor  and  the  women  of  toil — they 
produce  and  are  willing  to  produce  to  the  fullest  of  their  ability  and 
capacity — but  we  urge  upon  you  for  your  consideration  also  that  the 
man  and  the  woman  of  labor  are  not  merely  machines,  but  he  and 
she  are  human  beings,  and  the  human  side  of  industry  must  also 
have  some  of  your  consideration. 

It  is  exceedingly  fortunate  that  in  the  draft  convention  a  protocol 
was  finally  agreed  upon — a  protocol  to  article  19 — that  shall  at  least 
safeguard  those  countries  and  those  States  from  such  reactionary 
legislation  as  may  be  proposed.  I  don’t  know  whether  you  men 
coming  from  your  various  countries  can  go  back  and  make  good  to  the 
men  of  labor  of  your  countries  if  you  declare  for  the  abandonment  of 
the  eight-hour  day.  The  proposition  of  the  gentleman  representing 
the  employers,  and  the  proposition  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Barnes 
yesterday,  are  equally  objectionable.  They  do  not  take  into 
account  the  unit  of  the  day,  the  eight-hour  day  maximum.  In 
the  United  States  we  are  going  beyond  it,  and  we  mean  it,  too,  and 
we  are  not  going  to  reduce  production.  On  the  contrary,  I  doubt  if 
there  is  anywhere  in  the  world  where  the  workmen,  individually  and 
collectively,  produce  so  much  as  the  workmen  do  in  the  United 
States. 

We  are  not  going  back,  nor  are  we  going  to  be  driven  back.  The 
whole  purpose  and  worth  of  the  International  Labor  Commission,  of 
the  draft  convention,  and  of  the  international  labor  conferences, 
was  to  bring  light  into  the  lives  of  the  working  people  of  the  world, 
and  not  to  take  from  them,  by  indirection  or  otherwise,  the  advan¬ 
tages  which  they  have  gained.  The  proposition  made  by  the 
employers  to  this  conference  might  better  be  termed  a  declaration  for 
the  abandonment  of  the  limits  of  the  hours  of  labor  in  the  whole 
civilized  world,  rather  than  a  proposition  to  regulate  the  hours  of 
labor. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr. 
Gompers  asked  me  two  questions - 

The  PRESIDENT  (interrupting).  May  I  suggest,  as  it  may  be 
useful  in  future  discussions,  that  the  asking  of  questions  by  one 
speaker  upon  the  floor  does  not  give  to  another  delegate  or  repre- 


46 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


sentative  on  the  floor  the  right  to  the  floor,  and  he  can  make  hie 
reply  when  he  gets  the  floor  in  the  regular  order. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Only,  then  they  went  into  a  discussion 
of  the  main  point,  and  that  was  not  on  the  program ;  we  did  not  con¬ 
fine  ourselves  to  the  question  under  discussion. 

Mr.  GOMPERS  (continuing).  Just  a  word  more  and  I  shall  be 
done. 

The  matter  of  this  proposition  must  of  necessity  prove  the  subject 
upon  which  there  should  be  material  agreement.  The  immediate 
future  requires  it  and  requires  a  better  regulation  than  can  be 
adopted  upon  any  other  question.  If  the  employers  maintain  the 
position  that  has  been  put  forth,  then  all  that  the  labor  delegates 
can  do  is  to  appeal  over  their  heads  to  the  representatives  of  the 
Governments,  and  the  representatives  of  the  Governments,  as  the 
result  of  the  expression  of  the  feelings  and  the  needs  of  all  their 
peoples,  will  support  a  proposition  so  manifestly  fair  as  the  maximum 
eight-hour  day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Shaw,  of  the  British  delegation,  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman,  much  has  been 
said  about  general  principles,  into  which  I  do  not  care  to  enter. 
Permit  me  to  say  that,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  have  heard  the 
declaration  of  the  employers  with  very  great  dissatisfaction.  Details 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  discuss,  because  I  suggest  that  the  question 
before  the  conference  is  not  the  question  as  to  the  program  that 
shall  be  submitted  to  Governments,  but  a  question  as  to  procedure. 
We  have  talked  a  great  deal  about  production.  I  am  in  favor  of 
increased  production,  even  in  this  conference,  and  I  suggest  that  we 
should  work  scientifically  in  order  to  get  a  better  production  than 
this  afternoon’s  proceedings  have  yet  given.  [Laughter  and  ap¬ 
plause.] 

Let  me  give,  if  I  may,  the  position  as  I  see  it.  Yesterday  I  m  ,ved 
the  adjournment  of  the  question  in  order  that  this  morning  every¬ 
body  should  come  to  a  conclusion  as  to  what  his  position  should  be. 
The  motion  before  the  conference  was  that  this  draft  convention  be 
adopted  as  the  basis  for  discussion,  but  a  remark  made  by  Mr.  Barnes 
left  in  the  minds  of  all  the  workers’  delegates  the  impression  that  the 
8-hour  day  as  such  would  be  excluded  if  the  motion  were  carried 
and  only  the  48  hours  would  be  discussed.  Mr.  Jouhaux  now  pro¬ 
poses  that  with  the  understanding  that  the  whole  of  the  report  is  the 
basis  for  discussion  and  Subject  to  amendment,  and  with  reservations 
with  regard  to  clause  9,  the  report  be  now  accepted;  and  I  suggest  to 
the  employers,  to  the  Government  delegates,  and  to  everybody  in 
the  conference  that  that  is  the  best  way  of  getting  down  to  business. 
If  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  is  carried,  this  convention  will  be  the 
basis  for  discussion;  either  the  employers’  or  the  Government  or  the 
workers’  representatives  may  amend  any  clause  they  care  to  amend. 
Every  principle  the  employers  have  laid  down  can  be  put  in  the 
shape  of  amendments  to  these  clauses;  every  principle  the  workers 
want  inserted  can  be  put  as  amendments  to  these  clauses;  and  we 
can  get  down  to  real  work  instead  of  dealing  with  generalities. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Prof.  Mahaim,  of  the  Belgian  delegation. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  Gentlemen,  I  do  not  claim  to  rival 
the  eloquence  of  the  speakers  who  have  preceded  me.  I  desire 
merely  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  assembly  to  its  method  of  work. 
We  have  before  us  Mr.  Barnes’s  proposition,  amended  by  Mr.  Jouhaux, 
supported  by  the  representative  from  Switzerland,  and  one  from 
Mr.  Marjoribanks  proposing  a  counter  draft.  The  real  question  to 
be  settled  for  the  time  being  is  whether  the  study  of  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  proposed  by  the  organizing  committee  is  to  be  referred  to  a 
commission  or  not. 

I  rather  think,  gentlemen,  that  to-day’s  experience  shows  that 
it  is  impossible  to  refer  the  draft  of  the  organizing  committee  to  a 
commission,  and  so  my  proposition  consists  in  requesting  that 
Mr.  Marjoribanks’  proposal  be  combined  with  that  of  Mr.  Barnes 
in  such  a  way  that  the  basis  of  discussion  shall  be  the  draft  of  the 
organizing  committee,  in  which  a  natural  place  will  be  found  for  the 
amendments  offered.  Gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  method 


is  at  once  logical  and  practical.  You  have  been  acquainted  for  a 
long  time  with  the  draft  cohvention  drawn  up  by  the  organizing 
committee,  and  after  reading  the  proposal  made  by  Mr.  Marjori¬ 
banks  I  think  I  can  say  that  all  the  proposals  which  have  any 
practical  bearing  on  the  case  and  which  are  in  this  memorandum 
will  at  the  proper  moment  find  a  place  for  themselves  as  amend¬ 
ments  to  the  draft  of  the  organizing  committee.  I  therefore  ask 
that  the  conference  proceed  with  the  agenda,  taking  as  a  basis  of 
discussion  the  Barnes  proposal,  to  which  will  be  added  Mr.  Marjori¬ 
banks’  proposal. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione,  of  the  Italian 
delegation. 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian):  I 
wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  meeting  to  the  international 
character  of  this  conference.  Some  of  the  expressions  used  by  the 
delegate  of  the  employees  of  France  and  the  delegate  of  the  em¬ 
ployers  of  Belgium  gave  me  the  impression  that  they  were  treating 
this  conference' as  if  it  were  a  conference  of  representatives  of 
workmen  and  of  employers  only. 

In  this  meeting  it  is  not  a  question  of  coming  to  agreements  be¬ 
tween  French  workmen  and  French  employers,  or  between  Belgian 
workmen  and  Belgian  employers.  If  the  discussions  are  to  be  con¬ 
ducted  on  that  basis,  then  we  run  the  risk  of  hearing  over  again  the 
things  that  have  been  repeated  a  hundred  times  already  in  Paris, 
in  Brussels,  in  Rome. 

What  is  the  purpose  of  this  conference?  Its  purpose  is  to  come  to 
international  understandings  so  that  it  may  not  be  possible  for  some 
country,  by  not  adhering  to  the  labor  regulations  accepted  in 
other  countries,  to  exercise  an  unfair  competition  which  would 
react  unfairly  on  those  countries  which  have  a  system  of  labor  legis¬ 
lation. 

If  we  look  at  the  purpose  of  this  meeting  from  that  point  of  view, 
then  its  program  of  work  becomes  very  clear.  It  is  well  kuown  that 
in  a  large  number  of  industrial  countries  eight-hour  legislation 
has  already  been  enacted  and  accepted  and  is  in  practice.  It  is 
a  question  of  consulting  with  those  countries  which  have  no  such 
legislation,  so  as  to  see  what  basis  there  can  be  for  an  understanding 
between  them  and  those  that  already  have  legislation  on  the  eight- 
hour  day. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  workers’  representatives  in  this  meeting  are 
concerned  about  this  point:  Whether  by  adhering  to  an  inter¬ 
national  agreement  in  this  meeting  they  may  not  prejudice  the 
advantages  already  secured  in  their  own  individual  countries  by 
their  workmen  as  the  result  of  labor  agitation  and  labor  legislation. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  representatives  of  the  employers  hope 
that  they  may  be  able  to  avail  themselves  of  the  results  of  any 
international  agreements  that  may  be  arrived  at  here  to  diminish 
the  victories  obtained  in  their  own  countries  by  their  workmen 
through  labor  legislation. 

Now,  I  would  call  the  attention  of  this  meeting  to  the  last  para¬ 
graph  of  article  405  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  which  was  inserted  at  the 
request  of  Mr.  Gompers.  This  article  says  as  follows: 

In  no  case  shall  any  member  be  asked  or  required,  as  a  result  of  the  adoption  of  any 
recommendation  or  draft  convention  by  the  conference,  to  lessen  the  protection 
afforded  by  its  existing  legislation  to  the  workers  concerned. 

It  is  therefore  evident  that  all  agreements  which  may  be  arrived 
at  by  this  convention  for  the  protection  of  workers  in  the  several 
countries  will  constitute  a  minimum  of  protection  and  not  a  maxi¬ 
mum. 

I  am  in  favor  of  the  motion  which  has  been  presented  at  this 
meeting,  to  refer  the  proposal  submitted  by  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  to  a  commission  for  its  examination,  together  with  the 
counter  proposals  submitted  to-day  by  the  employers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Fontaine,  the  French  delegate. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Yesterday  and  to-day  we  discussed 
at  once  a  question  of  method  and  a  question  of  substance,  and  I 
think  it  is  by  coupling  these  two  questions  together  that  we  have 
prolonged  the  discussion.  This  interchange  of  opinions  has,  how- 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


47 


ever,  not  been  useless,  for  it  has  permitted  both  employers  and  work¬ 
ers  at  once  to  make  known  their  feelings  on  a  most  important  ques¬ 
tion.  a  root  question,  which  was  the  basis  of  all  decisions  affecting 
the  eight-hour  day. 

Here  is  the  proposal  I  wish  to  make:  To  omit  from  Mr.  Barnes's 
motion  the  words  “concerning  the  48-hour  week.”  These  words 
anticipate  a  solution  of  the  problem;  they  are  the  words  to  which 
Mr.  Jouhaux  objected,  and  to  which  all  the  employers  may  likewise 
object,  since  they  offer  in  advance  a  solution  when  only  a  method 
is  concerned. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Don’t  speak  for  the  employers;  they  will 
speak  for  themselves. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France.)  1  am  speaking  for  the  employers 
with  whom  I  have  had  an  understanding,  but  any  contradiction 
will  be  quite  in  order. 

I  propose  to  omit  the  words  “concerning  the  48-hour  week.” 
That  being  done,  we  shall  take  as  a  guide  for  the  discussion  the  series 
of  proposals  made  by  the  organizing  committee.  All  the  amend¬ 
ments  can  be  presented,  both  on  the  8  and  48  hour  question,  as  well 
as  on  all  questions  raised  by  the  counter  draft  of  the  employers’ 
group. 

I  am  not  saying  at  this  moment  that  it  will  not  be  necessary,  as 
the  employers  desire,  to  appoint  a  commission;  I  merely  say 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  appoint  it  before  the  general  discussion 
on  the  8  and  48  hour  question  has  taken  place,  for  not  until  then  can 
the  amendments  take  final  shape.  After  this  general  discussion 
will  come  the  question  whether  or  not  it  is  proper  to  appoint  a  com¬ 
mission  to  which  all  amendments  shall  be  referred. 

My  proposal,  in  brief,  is  as  follows: 

First,  to  adopt  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion,  omitting  the  phrase  “concern¬ 
ing  the  48-hour  week,”  which  anticipates  a  solution,  whereas  we  are 
only  seeking  to  define  a  method;  second,  to  hold  a  general  debate 
on  this  main  point.  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week ;  third,  when  this 
has  been  done  and  you  have  come  to  a  decision  on  this  point,  which 
can  not  be  treated  in  committee,  since  it  can  only  be  decided  by  the 
assembly,  you  will  then  determine  whether  or  not  it  seems  useful  to 
appoint  a  commission  to  which  will  be  referred  all  amendments, 
including  those  which  are  proposed  by  the  employers  and  which 
are  included  in  their  own  proposal. 

Such  is  the  proposal  which  I  submit  in  order  to  shorten  this  dis¬ 
cussion. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Will  you  allow  me,  Mr.  Chairman, 
to  say  one  word,  that  I  accept  the  proposal  offered  by  Mr.  Fontaine. 

The  PRESIDENT.  M.  Guerin,  of  the  French  delegation. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  The  employers  find  themselves  com¬ 
pelled  to  insist  on  the  proposal  formulated  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks, 
supported  by  Mr.  Carlier.  and  taken  up  again  by  the  Swiss  delegate. 
Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  has  made  the  same  request  as  ourselves, 
namely,  to  refer  this  proposal  to  a  commission.  In  fact,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  what  is  going  on  here  shows  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
to  extricate  this  question  from  discussion,  more  or  less  confused,  by 
trying  to  limit  the  number  of  participants  in  the  debate,  in  order  to 
tty  to  come  to  an  agreement. 

Are  we  here  to  make  speeches  for  the  public,  or  are  we  here  to  en¬ 
deavor  to  reach  a  practical  solution?  To  state  the  question,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  to  settle  it.  Now,  experience  teaches  us — and  I  am  aston¬ 
ished  that  Mr.  Mahaim’s  experience  has  taught  him  the  contrary  of 
what  we  have  all  observed — that  when  one  is  facing  300  persons  it  is 
impossible  to  reach  an  agreement  on  a  wording  necessarily  involving 
compromise.  If  we  are  in  a  committee — so  constituted,  of  course, 
that  all  opinions  shall  be  represented — we  shall  probably  succeed  in 
reaching  an  agreement;  or  else,  if  we  do  not,  it  will  be  because  such 
agreement  is  impossible. 

What  is  there  impossible,  impracticable,  in  referring  this  to  a  com¬ 
mission?  That  is  what  is  done  in  all  deliberative  assemblies.  The 
proposal  of  Mr.  Marjoribanks  is  joined  to  that  of  Mr.  Fontaine,  and 
that  of  Mr.  Carlier  to  that  of  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione;  there  is  also 
a  suggestion  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Jouhaux.  All  of  which  indicates 


that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  get  together,  so  as  to  come  to  an 
agreement  in  the  quiet  of  a  committee. 

We  make  this  proposal  with  the  best  intentions  and  the  greatest 
sincerity.  Once  more,  I  do  not  see  what  there  is  extraordinary  in 
it.  I  repeat,  we  insist,  then  on  the  proposal  to  appoint  a  commis¬ 
sion  to  try  to  reach  an  agreement  on  the  various  proposals  which 
have  been  submitted  to  us. 

One  more  word;  The  honorable  workers’  delegate  from  Great 
Britain  said  just  now  that  we  were  not  getting  on,  that  we  were  not 
doing  any  work.  Most  assuredly,  the  way  to  do  efficient  work  is 
to  get  started  on  referring  questions  to  commissions.  I  therefore 
submit  a  proposal  worded  as  follows:  Reference  to  a  commission  of 
all  drafts  submitted  or  to  be  submitted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  I  only  want  to  make  a 
short  statement.  I  was  asked  two  questions  by  Mr.  Gompers.  I 
am  sorry  I  interrupted  his  speech.  I  thought  he  had  finished  it; 
otherwise  I  would  not  have  risen. 

I  want  to  say  that,  in  our  opinion,  the  proposals  offered  by  the 
employers  are  in  the  spirit  of  the  draft  convention  and  in  the  spirit 
of  the  question  submitted  to  us  by  the  League  of  Nations.  But  there 
is  this  point  which  I  think  demonstrates  the  necessity  of  referring 
these  things  to  a  committee,  viz,  that  Mr.  Gompers  put  into  our 
mouths  ideas  and  words  that  we  never  intended.  We  never  intended 
to  question  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week.  We  simply  desired 
that  the  details  of  the  law  in  connection  with  these  questions  should 
be  referred  to  a  committee;  and,  in  addition  to  that,  it  never  entered 
our  heads  that  when  men  in  continuous  industries  were  working 
56  hours  a  week  additional  hours  should  be  imposed  on  them.  We 
realize  as  well  as  he  does  that  you  can  not  ask  people  to  work  long 
hours  and  expect  them  to  be  as  fresh  at  the  end  of  a  year  or  10  years 
or  20  years  as  when  they  are  working  a  reasonable  time.  We  fully 
realize  the  necessity  that  workmen  should  not  be  asked  to  work  a 
longer  time  than  enables  them. to  work  continuously  without  any 
injurious  effects  upon  their  health. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  You  have  not  said  a  word  about  eight  hours. 

The  PRESIDENT.  M.  Jouhaux  is  recognized. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  wish  to  prolong  the  denate 
and  consequently  I  shall  not  oppose  Mr.  Fontaine’s  motion  being 
put  to  the  vote,  but  I  have  a  right  to  ask  for  myself  in  what  respect 
the  motion  presented  in  the  third  place  modifies  the  point  of  view 
which  we  expressed  on  behalf  of  the  workers’  delegation.  The 
workers’  delegation  has  not  expressed  itself  upon  the  substance  of 
the  question;  it  expressed  itself  upon  the  form,  both  on  account  of  the 
discussion  which  had  taken  place  yesterday  afternoon  and  the  de¬ 
cision  which  had  been  made  as  to  the  status  of  the  question.  We 
could  just  as  well  have  voted  upon  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
workers’  delegation;  I  do  not  think  that  the  workers’  delegation 
will  insist  upon  it,  for  among  us  there  is  no  author’s  vanity.  But 
we  are  desirous  of  calling  attention,  since  it  must  be  emphasized, 
to  the  fact  that  after  all,  after  the  explanations  furnished  by  Mr. 
Fontaine,  explanations  which  rounded  out  his  resolution,  it  is 
understood  that  the  general  discussion  which  is  about  to  begin  will 
bear  upon  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  considered  as  a 
maximum. 

Now  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  in  reply  to  Mr.  Guerin,  if  he  will 
permit  me  to  do  so.  Mr.  Guerin  said:  “We  are  not  here  to  make 
speeches  for  the  public.”  Evidently,  we  are  not  here  to  make 
speeches,  but  we  are  not  here  either,  Mr.  Guerin,  to  withhold  our 
thought  and  not  to  put  into  words  the  claims  which  we  have  to 
defend,  the  aspiration  which  we  must  set  forth;  and  it  is  proper  that 
in  a  conference  like  this,  without  exceeding  the  parliamentary  limits, 
but  remaining  within  the  bounds  of  discussion,  logic,  and  reason — 
I  think  we  should  be  doing  the  workers  an  injustice  in  charging  that 
they  have  overstepped  the  ground  on  which  they  were  to  stand — 
it  is  proper  that  the  general  discussion  should  lay  bare  those  aspira¬ 
tions  which  pervade  all  the  masses  of  workers.  These  aspirations 
constitute,  as  it  were,  a  solid  foundation  to  the  arguments  necessary 


48 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


to  make  those  who  have  not  yet  understood  perceive  that  we  are 
at  the  dawn  of  a  new  world  which  calls  for  better  working  conditions. 
Failure  to  accept  this  evidence  is  going  contrary  to  progress  and 
development;  it  would  be  a  reversion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches,  the  Italian 
delegate. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  Ladies  and  gentlemen, 
we  have  before  us  a  proposal  supported  by  the  Italian  delega¬ 
tion  for  referring  to  a  commission  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  as 
amended  by  himself  at  Mr.  Fontaine’s  request  and  also  an  amend¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Marjoribanus.  To  put  an  end  to  this  prolonged  discus¬ 
sion,  I  ask  that  the  modified  proposal  of  Mr.  Barnes  and  the  Marjori- 
hanks  amendment  be  referred  to  a  commission  for  examination. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  recurs  on  the  substitute  offered 
by  Mr.  Jouhaux.  Mr.  Fontaine’s  motion  is  an  amendment  to  Mr. 
Barnes’s  motion:  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  is  a  substitute  for  all.  If 
Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  is  adopted  then  that  disposes  of  all  of  the 
questions  before  the  house;  if  it  is  voted  down  the  question  would 
then  recur  upon  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Parsons,  which  is  a 
motion  to  divide  the  question  before  the  house.  When  that  is  dis¬ 
posed  of,  then  the  question  would  recur  upon  the  amendment  that 
has  been  made  by  Mr.  Fontaine.  If  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion  is  still 
before  the  house,  that  being  disposed  of,  then  the  question  would 
recur  upon  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks.  That,  as 
I  understand  it,  is  the  parliamentary  status;  and  the  question  now 
recurs  on  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr.  Jouhaux.  Mr.  Parsons,  of 
the  Canadian  delegation. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  Just  to  make  a  point  clear,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  the  motion  which  I  offered  yesterday  was  to  meet  difficulties 
in  which  we  found  ourselves  then.  You  will  remember  that  we  were 
commencing  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  eight-hour  day,  and  it 
was  uncertain  as  to  whether  we  should  continue  that  or  not.  Now, 
owing  to  the  fact  that  we  have  been  discussing  that  question,  I  think 
the  motion  which  I  made  yesterday  should  be  withdrawn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  the  motion  made  by  Mr. 
Parsons  yesterday  will  be  withdrawn. 

While  the  Chair  is  not  permitted  to  enter  into  discussions,  may  the 
Chair  make  the  suggestion  that  as  a  result  of  your  discussions  to-day 
and  the  acceptance  of  an  amendment  by  Mr.  Barnes,  the  adoption 
of  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion  as  amended,  and  with  the  amendments 
accepted  by  him,  really  carried  into  effect  the  opportunity  to  present 
the  things  that  are  proposed  by  the  employers,  carries  out  the  idea 
proposed  by  the  employees,  and  if  those  amendments  are  therefore 
withdrawn,  a  direct  motion  can  be  had  upon  Mr.  Barnes’s  motion 
amended? 

Mr.  GOMPERS  (United  States).  How  does  that  read? 

The  Clerk.  The  motion  moved  by  Mr.  Barnes,  as  amended  on 
the  proposal  of  M.  Fontaine,  reads  as  follows: 

Th;it  the  draft  convention  prepared  by  the  organizing  committee  be  adopted  by 
the  conference  as  the  basis  for  discussion.  But  that  the  question  of  its  application 
to  the  tropical  and  other  countries  referred  to  in  the  third  paragraph  of  article  405 
be  referred  in  the  first  instance  for  consideration  by  a  special  committee  which  shall 
report  to  the  conference. 

A  Belgian  Delegate.  I  ask  for  the  floor  to  speak  on  the  status 
of  the  question. 

Mr.  GOMPERS  (United  States).  If  that  proposal  of  Mr.  Barnes 
is  adopted  it  practically  excludes  the  consideration  by  the  committee 
of  the  8-hour  work  day.  The  recommendation  of  the  organizing 
committee,  which  I  have  seen  for  the  first  time  this  afternoon, 
makes  this  provision,  and  has  for  its  basis  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes, 
and  I  ask  that  it  be  read: 

[The  following  extract  was  thereupon  read:] 

The  organizing  committee  submit  as  a  basis  for  the  discussion  of  the  subject  by  the 
conference  the  draft  of  a  convention  which  is  annexed  to  this  chapter.  The 
draft  embodies  the  principle  of  the  48-hour  week.  The  committee  suggests  the 
adoption  of  this  principle  rather  than  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day,  for  two  reasons- 

In  other  words,  if  this  motion  is  adopted,  this  conference  goes  on 
record  as  declaring  for  the  48-hour  week  in  preference  to  the  8-hour 


workday.  I  therefore  suggest  that  the  entire  subject  matter  be 
referred  to  a  committee  with  all  of  the  proposals  that  have  been 
made  to  this  conference  and  also  the  report  of  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  by  Mr.  Gompers  that 
this  motion  and  all  the  amendments,  with  the  report  of  the  organizing 
committee,  be  referred  to  a  commission  for  consideration.  You  have 
heard  the  motion. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  May  I  ask  a  question?  Does  that 
mean  all  the  amendments  that  are  now  in  or  all  the  amendments 
that  will  be  sent  in? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  I  beg  to  second  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Gompers.  It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  only  by  a  full  consideration 
of  all  these  proposals  by  a  committee  quietly  and  dispassionately 
that  the  conference  will  reach  a  wise  and  sane  conclusion  on  this 
most  important,  but  in  some  respects  difficult,  matter.  I  am  glad  to 
second  the  motion. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  I  must  oppose  that  resolution, 
Mr.  Chairman,  for  these  reasons:  That  there  are  many  matters  of  de¬ 
tail  that  are  in  urgent  need  of  alteration  that  have  not  been  handled 
in  these  amendments  by  labor  delegations.  If  Mr.  Gompers’s 
proposal  is  accepted  we  shall  get  the  amendments  of  the  employers 
and  the  convention.  They  will  be  handed  over  to  the  committee 
and  all  other  things  will  be  excluded,  whilst  the  motion  of  M.  Fon¬ 
taine  gives  permission  to  any  delegate  whatever  at  any  point  in  the 
convention  to  raise  any  point  he  desires,  or  the  whole  of  the  group 
which  he  represents  desires.  It  gives  us  a  chance  of  dealing  with 
every  portion  of  the  convention. 

The  things  that  Mr.  Gompers  reads  are  not  in  the  convention  itself. 
The  convention  does  not  contain  them.  It  is  merely  an  opinion 
expressed  by  the  committee  that  drew  up  the  convention,  and  M. 
Fontaine  has  produced  a  way  out  of  our  difficulty,  which  will  give 
the  labor  representatives  in  this  conference  a  chance  of  raising  the 
eight-hour  question,  which  will  give  the  employers  a  chance  of  rais¬ 
ing  everything  they  desire,  and  which  will  give  the  labor  delegations 
a  chance  of  raising  any  matter  of  detail  they  desire  on  the  convention. 
As  Mr.  Gompers’s  proposal  will  absolutely  cut  out  the  labor  delega¬ 
tion  from  sending  any  further  amendments  I  oppose  it.  It  is  un¬ 
necessary  and,  from  the  labor  point  of  view,  highly  undesirable. 
[Applause.] 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  But  in  our  understanding  it  is  the 
same  thing. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Gompers. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  Mr.  Shaw  wholly  misunderstands  my  motion.  I 
have  moved  that  the  entire  subject  matter,  with  all  the  proposals, 
now  or  hereafter  made  anywhere,  no  matter  what,  shall  be  taken 
cognizance  of  by  the  committee,  which  shall  bring  in  a  report. 

Mr.  SHAW.  Yes;  but  I  asked  a  question  and  I  got  no  answer,  so 
I  had  to  speak. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Kershaw. 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  Mr.  Chairman,  before  that  question  is 
put  I  should  like  to  ask  Mr.  Gompers  whether  such  a  committee 
would  examine  the  case  of  the  eastern  countries  or  whether  a  special 
commission  would  be  set  up  for  that  purpose.  It  seems  very  desir¬ 
able  and  I  think  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  in  this  conference 
that  the  case  of  the  eastern  countries  is  quite  separate  and  should 
be  considered  by  a  special  committee. 

Mr.  GOMPERS.  If  I  may  answer  before  the  translation  is  given, 
so  that  both  may  be  translated  at  the  same  time,  I  will  say  that  my 
thought  is  that  there  is  a  general  consensus  of  opinion  expressed 
here  tills  afternoon  that  a  committee  should  be  appointed.  Now, 
my  object  was  that  the  committee  should  have  the  jurisdiction  to 
discuss,  to  hear  and  determine,  and  to  report  everything  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  it;  and  if  that  committee  believes  that  a  special  committee 
should  proceed  to  the  investigation  of  the  question  in  the  Far  East, 
it  is  within  the  province  of  that  committee  to  so  propose  and  of  this 
convention  to  adopt.  It  may  do  anything. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


49 


Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  I  submit,  Mr.  President,  that  the  two 
problems  are  entirely  different.  The  problems  of  the  eastern  coun¬ 
tries  are  of  a  special  nature  and  it  seems  very  desirable  that  they 
should  be  dealt  with  by  a  special  committee.  It  would  shorten  the 
work  of  the  conference  if  that  arrangement  were  adopted,  and  if 
Mr.  Gompers's  proposal  should  be  adopted — that  is,  to  remit  the 
proposal  to  a  committee — I  suggest  the  question  should  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  two  committees,  one  to  deal  with  the  question  in  its  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  western  countries  and  the  other  to  deal  with  the  eastern 
countries. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Carlier,  of  the  Belgian  delegation,  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  At  any  rate,  Mr.  Gompers  was  sug¬ 
gesting  to  us  just  now  a  visit  to  the  Patent  Office.  Well,  I 
should  be  glad  to  go  with  him  to  see  if  there  is  any  kind  of  apparatus 
to  shed  a  little  light  on  our  debate.  It  would  be  a  very  good  thing. 

What  I  wish  to  say  is  merely  this:  If  you  do  not  put  it  to  a  vote, 
Mr.  President,  so  as  to  put  in  motion  the  matter  of  appointing  a 
commission,  it  will  be  utterly  impossible  for  you  to  get  this  proposal 
voted  upon-  We  can  not  find  out  the  sentiment  of  the  assembly 
with  regard  to  it.  One  must  always  in  all  representative  parlia¬ 
mentary  assemblies — and  I  have  the  honor  to  belong  to  some  of 
them — begin  with  the  most  general  aspect  of  a  question,  so  as  to  be 
able  to  come  to  a  debate  on  all  the  proposals  in  succession. 

I  will  add  just  a  word.  In  calling  for  the  appointment  of  a  com¬ 
mission  we  have  not  the  least  intention  of  offering  any  obstacles. 
On  the  contrary,  our  proposal  Was  made  in  such  a  way  that  the  work 
of  the  commission  would  be  greatly  shortened  and  the  agreement 
which  we  desire  would  be  quickly  arrived  at.  I  am  convinced  of 
one  thing — and  I  am  anxious  to  put  it  to  the  assembly— that  is, 
if  this  commission  were  appointed,  it  would  finish  the  work  in  less 
than  two  days. 

That  is  why  I  take  the  liberty  of  insisting  that  priority  be  given,  in 
conformity  with  parliamentary  customs,  to  the  proposal,  made  by 
the  Swiss  delegate  and  supported  by  the  others. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  ask  that  the  debate  be  closed.  For 
two  days  we  have  been  discussing  the  status  of  the  question.  Each 
time  the  question  bounces  up  again.  N ew  interpretations  constantly 
force  us  to  a  fresh  discussion  without  our  ever  advancing  one  step 
toward  the  solution  which  we  all  declare  we  are  aiming  at.  Well, 
let  us  put  an  end  to  it  once  for  all.  Yesterday  we  put  the  question 
on  the  mere  putting  of  the  question  itself.  The  question  of  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  commissions  and  all  other  interpretations  can  not 
come  up  until  after  this  first  point  itself  has  been  decided,  and  I 
ask  therefore  that  this  first  point  be  settled. 

We  have,  I  repeat,  brought  in  a  resolution  on  this  point.  This 
resolution,  I  am  certain,  gave  satisfaction  to  the  great  majority  of 
the  delegates  here  present.  A  fresh  interpretation  was  brought  up, 
which,  according  to  Mr.  Fontaine’s  statements,  tended  to  the 
same  purpose  as  the  one  we  aimed  at;  that  is  to  say,  not  to  limit  in 
any  way  the  general  discussion  which  will  take  place  here.  If, 
then,  that  is  the  spirit  of  Mr.  Fontaine’s  resolution,  I  ask  that  this 
question  be  passed  upon  once  for  all,  and  that  we  may  thereby 
commence  the  general  discussion.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  move  you  that  the  debate  do  now 
close,  if  I  have  a  seconder. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  and  seconded  that  debate 
do  now  close.  As  many  as  favor  the  motion  to  close  debate - - 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  if  this  motion 
is  carried,  does  it  mean  that  a  vote  will  be  taken? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  means  that  there  will  be  no  further  debate 
upon  the  questions  before  the  house. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  But  will  you  proceed  to  take 
a  vote? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  1  have  been  trying  for  some 
time,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  catch  your  eye. 


I  desire  to  move  an  adjournment.  I  think  it  very  undesirable 
that  a  vote  should  be  taken  at  this  juncture  for  very  many  reasons, 
which  I  do  not  want  to  weary  you  with,  by  stating  at  the  present 
moment. 

I  think  it  very  desirable — -I  can  give  reasons — that  this  debate 
should  be  suspended  and  the  session  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  and 
I  beg  to  move  accordingly  if  it  is  in  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  What  time  to-morrow  mil  you  say? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  At  2.30. 

Members.  No. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Or  to-morrow  morning,  if  the 
conference  so  desires.  I  do  not  care  much  about  the  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  hears  no  second  to  the  motion. 

The  question  is  on  the  motion  to  close  debate.  As  many  as  favor 
the  motion  to  close  debate  will  raise  their  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted  by  the  secretary. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Now  those  opposed  will  raise  their  hands  and  keep  them  raised 
until  counted. 

It  is  carried  unanimously. 

The  question  now  recurs  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Gompers  to  refer 
to  a  committee. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  to  refer  to  a  committee  will  raise 
their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman - 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  can  not  recognize  the  gentleman. 
Hands  down.  Those  opposed  to  the  motion  to  refer  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  in  favor  of  the  motion,  30;  those  opposed,  41.  The  motion 
to  refer  is  lost,  and  the  question  now  recurs  on  the  substitute  offered 
by  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

The  substitute  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  will  be  read  for  the  information  of 
the  conference. 

The  Clerk  (reading): 

The  draft  convention  concerning  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  regarded 
as  maxima,  as  drawn  up  by  the  organizing  committee,  is  adopted  by  the  confer¬ 
ence  as  a  basis  of  discussion,  but  the  question  of  applying  this  draft  to  tropical 
and  other  countries  mentioned  in  the  third  paragraph  of  article  405  of  the  treaty 
shall  first  be  referred  for  consideration  to  a  special  commission  which  shall  report 
to  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  substitute.  As  many 
as  favor  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  will  raise  their  right 
hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

There  are  29  for  and  36  against.  The  substitute  is  lost. 

The  question  now  recurs  on  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Marjoribanks. 

The  Clerk.  The  proposal  that  you  are  now  asked  to  vote  upon  is 
that  all  proposals  made  or  to  be  made  on  this  subject  be  referred  to  a 
committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  a  great  deal  more  than  that  to  Mr. 
Marjoribanks’ s  proposition.  Apparently  Mr.  Marjoribanks ’s  propo¬ 
sition  was  identical  with  that  of  Mr.  Gompers,  from  our  records. 
The  Chair  did  not  so  understand  it.  The  Chair  understood  Mr. 
Marjoribanks’ s  proposition  to  include  a  great  many  details  that 
were  not  specified  in  Mr.  Gompers’s  motion. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Including  the  submission  of  the  case 
of  the  employers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Exactly.  That  is  what  I  understood 
it  to  be. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  There  is  still  the  Fontaine 
proposal. 


146865°— 20- 


4 


50 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  recurs  on  the  amendments 
offered  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  we  would  like 
to  hear  the  amendment  read  again.  We  can  not  hear  anything  at  this 
end  of  the  hall. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  that  is  all  that  there  is  to  Mr.  Majori- 
banks’s  proposition,  it  has  already  been  passed  upon,  and  the  ques¬ 
tion  would  recur  upon  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Barnes,  with  the 
amendment  made  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  which  Mr.  Barnes  has  accepted. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  May  we  have  the  question  read  as 
amended? 

The  Clerk.  The  subject  submitted  to  vote  is  as  follows:  That 
the  draft  convention  prepared  by  the  organizing  committee  be 
adopted  by  the  conference  as  the  basis  for  discussion,  but  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  its  application  to  tropical  and  other  countries  referred  to  in 
the  third  paragraph  of  article  405  of  the  treaty  be  referred,  in  the 
first  instance,  for  consideration  to  a  special  committee,  which  shall 
report  to  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  in  favor  of  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes 
as  amended  by  Mr.  Fontaine  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted . 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to.  The  Chair  is  ready  to  entertain  a  motion 
now  relative  to  adjournment. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  I  move  we  adjourn  to  3  o’clock 
to-morrow  afternoon. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  moved  that  the  conference  adjourn 
until  3  o’clock  to-morrow  afternoon.  As  many  as  favor  adjourning 
until  3  o’clock  to-morrow  afternoon  will  raise  their  right  hands  and 
keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands.  The  conference  is 
adjourned  until  3  o’clock. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.50  o’clock  p.  m.  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Thursday,  November  6,  1919,  at  3  o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for  Hon. 

Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 


Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 

Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 


Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  Tom  Shaw  (substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuz&ne. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Haiti: 

Mr.  Charles  Moravia. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  Des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi- 
.  tuto  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 

N  orwav : 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 


Panama— Continued. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan- 
Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Kahn. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Mr.  V.  Gonzales. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymcr. 

Mr.  Jan  Zaglcniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  N.  Stoykovitch  (substi- 
tutefor  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Frik  M.  Sjoborg). 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

United  States  of  America: 

Mr.  Samuel  Gompers. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 


EIGHTH  SESSION— THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER  6,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  3.05  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson, 
president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  read  correspondence  and 
make  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  received  this  letter  from 
the  International  Congress  of  Working  Women: 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  herewith  a  copy  of  the  resolution  passed 
by  the  International  Congress  of  Working  Women  on  child  labor. 

In  behalf  of  the  International  Congress  of  Working  Women  it  is  my  privilege  to 
ask  you  to  lay  before  the  International  Labor  Conference  of  the  League  of  Nations 
for  their  consideration  and  we  hope  favorable  action,  this  expression  of  the  views  of 
the  delegated  representatives  of  the  working  women  of  13  of  the  nations  signatory  to 
the  League  of  Nations  covenant. 

The  following  are  the  resolutions: 


EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDREN. 

(o)  Minimum  age.— No  child  shall  be  employed  or  permitted  to  work  in  any  gain¬ 
ful  occupation  unless  he  is  16  years  of  age,  has  completed  the  elementary  school,  and 
has  been  found  by  a  school  physician  or  other  medical  officer  especially  appointed 
for  that  purpose  to  be  of  normal  development  for  a  child  of  his  age  and  physically  St 
for  the  work  at  which  he  is  to  be  employed. 

No  young  person  under  18  years  of  age  shall  be  employed  in  or  about  a  mine  or 
quarry. 

The  legal  workday  for  young  persons  between  16  and  18  years  of  age  shall  be  shorter 
than  the  legal  workday  for  adults. 

(6)  During  the  night. — No  minor  shall  be  employed  between  the  hours  of  6  p.  m.  and 
7  a.m. 

(c)  In  unhealthy  processes. — Prohibition  of  the  employment  of  minors  in  dangerous 
or  hazardous  occupations  or  at  any  work  which  will  retard  their  proper  physical 
development. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


ADMINISTRATION. 

(1)  Work  permits. — A  yearly  medical  inspection  by  medical  officer  appointed  for 
that  purpose  by  the  authorities,  records  of  which  shall  be  kept. 

(2)  Lists  of  employed  minors  with  their  hours  of  work  shall  be  posted  in  all  work¬ 
rooms  in  which  they  are  employed. 

(3)  The  number  of  inspectors,  and  especially  women  inspectors,  employed  by  the 
factory  or  labor  commission  shall  be  sufficient  to  insure  regular  inspection  of  all  estab¬ 
lishments  in  which  children  are  employed  and  such  special  inspections  and  investi¬ 
gations  as  are  necessary  to  insure  the  protection  of  the  children. 

We  further  recommend  compulsory  continuation  schools  for  minors  until  the  age 
of  18. 

If  there  is  no  objection,  I  propose  to  transmit  that  letter  and  the 
resolutions  to  the  committee  on  the  employment  of  children. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection  the  communication  will 
be  referred  to  the  commission  dealing  with  the  labor  of  children. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  following  provisional  time 
schedule  has  been  approved  by  the  committee  of  selection.  It  is 
drawn  up  on  the  principle  that  the  committees  will  consist  largely 
of  advisers,  and  that  it  will  therefore  be  possible  to  have  certain 
meetings  of  committees  simultaneously  with  meetings  of  the  con¬ 
ference.  It  will  also  be  seen  that  the  program  leaves  the  hours 
from  9  to  11  a.  m.  free  every  day  in  order  to  allow  the  groups  to  hold 
their  meetings  between  those  hours.  It  should  also  be  understood 
that  the  meetings  of  the  committees  are,  of  course,  subject  to  altera¬ 
tions  by  the  committees  themselves  if  they  can  arrange  meetings 
at  times  more  convenient  to  their  members;  but  if  any  alterations 
are  made,  I  shall  be  glad  to  be  informed  beforehand,  as  any  altera¬ 
tions  will  necessitate  some  readjustment  of  the  allocation  of  rooms 
and  so  on. 

This  is  the  provisional  time  schedule  drawn  up: 

Monday: 

11  a.  m.,  committee  on  unemployment;  committee  on  employment  of  women. 

2.30  p.  m.,  full  sitting  of  the  conference. 

Tuesday: 

11  a.  m.,  committee  on  unemployment;  committee  on  child  labor. 

2.30  p.  m.,  full  sitting  of  the  conference;  committee  on  unhealthy  processes. 
Wednesday: 

11a.m.,  committee  on  unhealthy  processes;  committee  on  women’s  employment 

2.30  p.  m.,  committee  on  unemployment;  committee  on  child  labor. 

Thursday: 

11  a.  m.,  committee  on  women’s  employment;  committee  on  child  labor. 

2.  30  p.  m.,  full  sitting  of  the  conference;  committee  on  unhealthy  processes. 

Friday: 

11  a.  m.,  committee  on  unhealthy  processes;  committee  on  child  labor. 

2.30  p.  m.,  full  sitting  of  the  conference. 

Saturday,  10.30  a.  m.,  committee  on  employment  of  women;  committee  on  unem¬ 
ployment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  the  provisional  time 
schedule  submitted  by  the  committee  of  selection  will  be  adopted 
as  the  provisional  time  schedule  of  the  conference. 

I  hear  no  objections,  and  it  is  so  adopted. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  received  from  Dr.  Royal 
Meeker,  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Labor,  a  number  of  copies  of  the 
Monthly  Labor  Review,  which  have  been  distributed  to  the  dele¬ 
gates.  He  has  also  sent  them  an  invitation  to  make  full  use  of  the 
library  of  the  Department  of  Labor  during  their  stay  in  Wash¬ 
ington.  With  the  approval  of  the  conference  I  propose  to  write 
to  him  and  to  thank  him  very  cordially  for  the  documents  which 
he  has  sent  to  the  delegates  and  for  the  invitation  which  he  has 
extended. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  add  for  the  information  of  the  delegates 
that  the  library  referred  to  is  one  of  the  most  complete  libraries  on 
labor  and  social  questions  in  existence,  and  that  the  representatives 
are  cordially  invited  to  avail  themselves  of  anything  in  the  library. 
[Applause.] 

The  representative  from  Ecuador.. 

Dr.  ELIZALDE  (Ecuador).  I  suggest  a  motion  to  extend  thanks 
to  Dr.  Meeker  for  this  kind  offer. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  moved  that  acknowledgments  be  made 
to  Dr.  Meeker  and  the  thanks  of  the  conference  be  extended  for 
this  kind  offer.  You  have  heard  the  motion. 


51 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed. 

It  is  agreed  to  unanimously. 

Mr.  Barnes,  of  the  British  delegation. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Might  I  move  another  resolution 
expressive  of  our  thanks?  I  want  to  move  a  resolution,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  expressive  of  our  thanks  and  appreciation  of  what 
has  been  done  for  us.  It  may  not  be  within  the  knowledge  of  all 
of  you  that  there  have  been  placed  at  our  disposal  for  meetings 
certain  rooms  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street  in  the  new  Navy 
Building;  and  rooms  have  also  been  allocated  for  the  special  use 
of  individual  delegates.  I  want  now,  if  you  will  allow  me,  Mr. 
Chairman,  to  move  a  resolution,  which  reads  as  follows: 

That  the  International  Labor  Conference  and  the  delegates  and  other  representa¬ 
tives  assembled  in  Washington  express  their  most  cordial  thanks  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States,  the  Hon.  Josephus  Daniels,  for  the  courtesy 
extended  by  the  Navy  Department  of  the  United  States  in  providing  the  conference 
with  offices  and  accommodation  in  the  Navy  Building. 

I  move  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  commend  it  for  favorable  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  meeting 'as  a  fitting  and  proper  thing  to  do  at  this 
juncture.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  motion.  As  many  as 
favor  the  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised 
until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

[None  raised.] 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  am  anxious  to  point  out  to  the  con¬ 
ference  the  construction  which  the  press  yesterday  put  upon  the 
vote  taken  by  the  conference.  This  interpretation  is  dangerous 
in  that  it  will  spread  ideas  not  held  by  the  conference,  which  would 
tend  to  create  in  the  minds  of  the  working  classes  an  unfavorable 
opinion  of  the  work  carried  on  by  this  conference.  The  press  yes¬ 
terday  interpreted  our  vote  as  a  setback  to  the  workers  in  the  matter 
of  the  eight-hour  day.  Such  is  not  the  case.  That  is  why  I  ask 
that  we  keep  to  an  objective  explanation  when  we  are  interpreting 
votes  on  questions  which  are  vital  to  the  masses  of  workers.  [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  I  ask  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  recognizes  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches. 

Baron  Maron  Des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  Mr.  President,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  observation  is  quite  correct.  This  annoy¬ 
ance  may  happen  again.  I  therefore  ask  if  it  would  not  be  in  order 
for  the  secretary  general  of  this  conference  to  issue  a  daily  com¬ 
munique  to  the  press  after  each  open  session,  the  only  one  with  which 
the  press  is  concerned,  this  communique  to  indicate  the  questions 
treated  by  the  conference  as  well  as  the  method  of  treatment  accorded 
these  questions.  I  make  a  formal  motion  to  that  effect. 

Dr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Butler,  the  secretary  general. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  should  like  to  say  that 
arrangements  are  made  by  which  the  press  receive  a  full  report  of 
the  proceedings  at  the  end  of  the  sitting  on  the  same  day;  therefore 
I  do  not  think  that  there  can  be  any  doubt  as  to  what  actually 
passes  on  any  particular  day.  Of  course,  if  the  conference  so  orders 
I  shall  be  prepared  to  do  my  best  to  draw  up  an  official  communique, 
but  that  would  not  necessarily  insure  that  it  would  be  published  or 
that  no  other  interpretations  would  be  put  upon  the  proceedings. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  the  Chair  be  permitted  to  make  a  re¬ 
mark  or  two  upon  the  matter?  In  all  countries  where  a  censorship 
of  the  press  does  not  exist  newspaper  owners  aDd  editors  are  at 
perfect  liberty  to  draw  any  deduction  they  please,  either  from  the 
abundance  of  their  ignorance  or  their  knowledge  of  the  situation 
[applause],  and  the  exclusion  of  the  press  and  giving  them  informa- 


52 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


tion  only  through  a  statement  issued  by  the  secretary  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  would  not  prevent  their  drawing  any  kind  of  deductions  they 
pleased  and  writing  any  kind  of  headlines  that  occurred  to  them. 
That  is  the  kind  of  a  situation  that  we  find  ourselves  in,  in  this  coun¬ 
try,  and  no  one  is  responsible  for  any  statement  that  occurs  in  any 
paper  except  the  person  -who  wrote  it,  the  proprietors  of  the  paper, 
and  the  editorial  management.  All  the  rest  of  us  refuse  to  accept 
responsibility  for  anything  that  is  printed  in  our  daily  press.  [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches 
that  the  secretary  prepare  a  statement  at  the  close  of  each  session 
for  presentation  to  the  press. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  I  beg  to  submit  to  the  members  of  the 
conference  that  there  would  be  no  practical  gain  in  adopting  the 
course  proposed.  I  submit  the  president  of  the  conference  has  stated 
to  us  in  very  clear  and  unmistakable  language  the  position  of  the 
press  in  this  and  I  think  in  all  other  Anglo-Saxon  countries.  I  do 
not  know  what  the  position  may  be  in  some  of  the  other  countries 
here  represented.  The  press  are  present  under  the  provisions  of 
the  rules  of  the  conference.  The  standing  orders  provide  that  the 
sessions  of  the  conference  shall  be  open  to  the  press,  as  I  recall  the 
provisions  of  the  standing  orders.  Therefore,  unless  we  change  our 
standing  orders,  which  I  submit  would  be  most  inadvi  sable,  we 
have  no  right  to  exclude  the  press  from  the  gathering.  Thus  I  sub¬ 
mit,  Mr.  President,  that  the  press  being  present  at  the  conference, 
in  a  position  to  hear  all  that  takes  place,  and  having  a  verbatim  report 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  submitted  to  them  at  the  close 
of  the  day,  are  as  fully  informed  in  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
conference  as  they  can  possibly  be.  It  would  neither  add  to  their 
information  nor  to  their  ability  to  present  a  report  to  their  readers 
to  have  a  further  official  report  prepared  by  the  secretary  and 
communicated  to  them.  I  would  venture  to  suggest  that  the  motion 
should  not  be  pressed  at  the  conference. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  Ecuador. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  On  the  question  that  is  before  the 
conference  I  want  to  say  that  I  come  from  the  freest  country  in 
the  world,  without  exception.  I  come  from  a  country  where  the 
press  can  say  anything  that  the  press  wishes;  a  country  where  no 
journalist  has  ever  been  imprisoned  or  fined  or  anything  of  that 
kind  on  account  of  anything  that  he  cared  to  say.  I  have  been 
born  in  an  atmosphere  of  freedom — of  absolute  freedom.  I  have 
never  seconded  a  motion  that  had  the  intention  of  suppressing  the 
press. 

To  my  understanding  the  motion  of  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches 
had  the  purpose  of  providing  the  press  with  information,  for  I  at  least 
was  not  informed  that  the  press  had  the  reports  of  the  conference 
half  an  hour  after  the  meeting  adjourned.  It  is  wonderful.  I  admire 
the  secretary  for  it,  but  it  was  not  within  my  knowledge. 

Of  course,  the  press  says  what  it  pleases.  The  journalists  that  are 
on  the  side  of  the  employers  will  help  them  and  say  what  is  in  their 
favor,  and  the  journalists  on  the  side  of  the  employees  will  say 
things  in  their  favor.  As  the  Chair  has  said,  it  is  impossible  to  stop 
the  press,  and  the  only  way  to  gain  freedom,  to  develop  civilization, 
is  by  helping  the  press  and  let  them  say  and  do  what  they  please. 
The  idea  has  been  only  and  exclusively  to  help  them,  to  give  them 
the  best  information  that  we  could.  I  have  no  objection,  if  the 
secretariat  provides  them  with  the  full  information  at  the  end  of 
every  meeting,  to  have  the  motion  of  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches 
withdrawn,  if  he  feels  the  same  way  I  do,  not  to  ask  for  the  com¬ 
munique  that  he  has  demanded. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  advised  that  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches  does  not,  in  view  of  the  statement  made  by  the  Chair,  desire 
to  press  the  motion  and  will  withdraw  it.  Without  objection,  that 
is  done. 

The  report  of  the  committee  on  credentials. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  I  will  take  a 
very  few  seconds  of  the  time  of  tjie  conference.  The  committee  has 


completed  its  reports  except  in  regard  to  one  matter,  on  which  they 
have  not  yet  been  able  to  obtain  the  necessary  information  and  on 
which  they  would  have  to  present  a  supplementary  report.  The 
committee,  which  was  composed  of  one  representative  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  delegates,  one  representative  of  the  employers’  delegates, 
and  one  representative  of  the  workers’  delegates,  has  happily  been 
able  to  present  a  unanimous  report.  That  report  has  been  printed 
and  was  circulated  among  the  members  of  the  conference  yesterday. 

I  therefore  propose  simply  to  content  myself  with  moving  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  credentials. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Mertens,  of  the  Belgian  delegation. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Mr.  President,  I  have  been  in¬ 
structed  to  present  to  you  here,  on  the  occasion  of  the  report  made 
by  the  committee  on  credentials,  the  point  of  view  of  the  workers 
regarding  the  admission  of  the  Japanese  delegate  to  the  conference. 

First  of  all  I  must  state  that  the  workers  decided  unanimously 
not  to  oppose  the  admission  of  the  Japanese  delegates.  We  insist, 
however,  that  the  method  by  which  this  delegate  was  selected  is  not 
in  conformity  either  with  the  peace  treaty  or  with  the  right  of 
organization.  This  right  is  recognized  the  whole  world  over,  and 
its  recognition  is  demonstrated  by  the  official  presence  at  this  con¬ 
ference  of  workers’  delegates,  of  delegates  of  trade-union  organizations 
who  sit  here  with  the  same  rights  as  Government  and  employers’ 
delegates.  We  wish  to  protest  energetically  against  the  action  of 
the  Japanese  Government  in  preventing  the  workers  of  Japan  from 
organizing  themselves  into  associations  and  from  im proving  their 
lot  by  such  organization.  For  this  reason  we  decided  to  submit  the 
following  protest,  in  the  name  of  the  workers: 

The  workers’  delegations  to  the  International  conference  at  Washington  having 
noticed  the  absence  of  the  official  workers’  delegation  for  Japan,  and  considering 
that  this  absence  is  caused  in  consequence  of  the  prohibition  in  Japan  of  the  fre« 
exercise  of  the  right  of  organization,  and  also  considering  that  such  policy  is  contrary 
to  democratic  ideas  and  in  opposition  to  the  fundamental  spirit  of  the  International 
Labor  Conference,  urge  that  the  conference  make  representation  to  the  Japanese 
Government,  so  that  in  Japan,  as  in  all  countries  forming  a  part  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  the  unrestricted  exercise  of  the  right  of  organization  should  be  scrupulously 
acknowledged  and  respected. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  the  Chair  understands  Mr.  Mertens,  he 
is  submitting  on  behalf  of  the  labor  representatives  a  protest  with 
regard  to  the  methods  pursued  by  the  Japanese  Government  in 
selecting  the  labor  representative,  and  he  submits  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  labor  representatives,  but  does  not  present  that 
resolution  as  a  resolution  before  this  conference. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Yes,  before  this  conference.  I 
entered  a  protest  the  other  day,  in  the  name  of  the  entire  workers’ 
delegation,  and  I  simply  wish  the  conference  to  act  thereon,  so  that 
progress  may  be  made  in  the  direction  of  the  desires  of  the  workers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  then  recurs  on  the  motion  of 
Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
credentials,  and  I  may  add  in  that  connection  that  the  statement 
and  resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Mertens  will  be  recorded.  The 
question  is  on  the  motion  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Just  one  moment,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man.  Do  I  understand  the  statement  made  by  our  friend  will  be 
recorded,  but  not  necessarily  recorded  as  the  finding  of  the  confer¬ 
ence?  If  it  is  to  be  so,  I  want  to  say  a  word  or  two  on  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  will  be  nothing  recorded  as  the  find¬ 
ing  of  this  conference  that  has  not  been  accepted  by  the  conference 
as  its  finding. 

Mr.  OUDEGEEST  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President - 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  get  this  matter  cleared  up  first,  if 
the  delegate  will  permit?  Just  a  moment.  As  I  understand  the 
situation  the  labor  representative  from  Belgium,  on  behalf  of 
the  labor  delegates  in  the  conference,  makes  a  protest  against  the 
manner  in  which  the  labor  delegate  from  Japan  was  selected,  and 
presents  to  the  conference  for  its  information  a  resolution  adopted 
by  the  labor  representatives  to  the  conference.  The  statement 
made  by  Mr.  Mertens  and  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  labor 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


53 


representatives  in  the  conference  will  go  into  the  record  as  a  part 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  record;  but  I  shall  not  submit  it  at  the 
present  time  for  the  purpose  of  having  a  vote  of  the  conference 
upon  it. 

The  question  now  recurs  on  the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 
The  delegate  in  the  rear  wanted  the  floor.  The  question  is  on 
the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  to  adopt  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  credentials.  As  many  as  are  in  favor  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Hands  raised.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  rai-e  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

It  is  agreed  to  unanimously. 

The  next  order  of  business  is  the  general  discussion  of  the  recom¬ 
mendations  of  the  organizing  committee  on  the  first  item  of  the 
agenda  of  the  conference,  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi,  of  the  Italian  delegation  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian):  The  conference  has 
at  last  gotten  down  to  the  discussion  of  the  main  point  on  its 
program,  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week.  This  is  no  new  ques¬ 
tion.  For  50  years  past  it  has  been  the  subject  of  a  whole  library 
of  printed  matter  which  has  discussed  the  question  from  the 
hygienic,  from  the  social,  from  the  industrial,  and  from  the 
economic  standpoint. 

There  has  already  been  presented  a  series  of  counter  proposals 
from  the  employers’  delegates.  I  believe  that  those  proposals  will 
receive  here  an  honorable  sepulcher  or  funeral.  They  contain  an 
effort  to  withdraw  from  the  workers  certain  principles  that  have 
already  been  accepted;  they  follow  lines  that  have  already  been 
disapproved .  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  we  can  say  of  them  what  has 
been  said  of  some  music,  that  it  contains  some  things  new  and  some 
things  good,  but  that  what  is  new  is  not  good  and  what  is  good  is 
not  new.  [Laughter.] 

The  question  has  been  raised:  Shall  it  be  an  8-hour  day  or  a 
48-hour  week?  To  that  the  workers  reply:  An  8-hour  day  and  a 
48-hour  week. 

The  employers  raise  the  question  of  underproduction.  Now,  it 
can  be  asked,  in  the  first  place:  Will  the  eight-hour  day  result  in 
underproduction?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  eight  hours’  work  a  day  un¬ 
der  proper  conditions  yields  as  much  product  as  longer  hours  under 
other  conditions?  And  then,  let  us  look  at  the  question  from 
another  point  of  view.  Except  for  economic  crisis  created  by  the 
war.  was  the  world  suffering  from  a  crisis  of  underproduction  ?  Is 
industry  in  normal  times  suffering  from  underproduction?  We 
have  heard  in  the  past  much  more  of  crises  of  overproduction  than 
of  underproduction. 

As  a  workers’  delegate,  I  am  in  favor  of  increasing  production.  I 
am  in  favor  of  increasing  production  not  in  order  to  increase  the 
wealth  of  those  who  control  industry  but  because  I  believe  that  in¬ 
creased  production  stimulates  the  power  of  consumption  of  the 
worker  and  gradually  raises  his  standard  of  life  and  assures  him  a 
better  life. 

But  even  if  there  were  to  be  some  slight  reduction  in  production 
as  a  result  of  a  universal  eight-hour  day,  I  would  like  to  ask  this 
other  question:  What,  from  the  social  viewpoint,  the  viewpoint  of 
civilization,  is  the  difference  between  the  effects  of  an  eight-hour 
day  and  an  excessively  long  working  day  on  the  social  conditions 
of  thte  workers  and  on  civilization?  He  would  like  only  to  quote 
from  an  English  economist.  Mr.  Crosfield,  who  said  that  what  dis¬ 
tinguishes  the  two  systems  is  the  same  as  the  difference  distinguish¬ 
ing  barbarism  from  civilization. 

I  do  not  believe  that  there  will  be  any  serious  opposition  in  this 
assembly  to  the  proposed  general  introduction  of  the  eight-hour  day 
as  the  normal  working  day  for  the  laborer.  The  question,  then,  is 
the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
need  for  a  weekly  day  of  rest  can  be  discussed  at  the  very  moment 
when  proposals  are  being  introduced  in  this  International  Labor 


Conference  by  the  employers  which  would  militate  against  the 
weekly  day  of  rest  for  the  workers  and  at  a  time  when  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Congress  of  Working  Women  assembled  in  this  city  has 
passed  a  resolution  in  favor  of  a  44-hour  week. 

The  employers  point  out  the  difficulty  of  granting  a  weekly  day 
of  rest - 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium)  (interrupting).  No!  Nol 

[Energetic  protests  in  Italian  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  not  translated.] 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian,  continuing) — in  certain 
industries  where  work  is  continuous.  I  am  the  first  to  admit  that 
there  are  difficulties,  but  I  do  not  think  that  they  are  those  difficul¬ 
ties  which  are  brought  forward  in  the  proposals  submitted  here  by 
the  delegate  from  Great  Britain. 

In  the  continuous  industries  there  must  be  not  only  the  three 
shifts  required  for  the  eight-hour  day,  but  there  must  be  a  fourth 
shift  to  make  it  possible  to  grant  a  weekly  day  of  rest.  At  the  very 
moment  when  the  difficulty  of  forming  a  fourth  shift  is  brought  for¬ 
ward  an  objection  is  made  that  there  is  not  sufficient  labor  capable 
of  performing  that  work  in  order  to  make  that  fourth  shift.  At  the 
.same  time  the  graphic  tables  that  are  available  on  the  statistics  of 
unemployment  show  that  there  is  a  growing  mass  of  unemployed 
labor  in  all  these  countries. 

Among  the  industries  which  are  mentioned  under  article  4  of  the 
report  submitted  to  this  conference  for  exemption  from  the  weekly 
day  of  rest  are  the'metal  industries,  the  steel  industry,  the  chem¬ 
ical  industries,  and  the  electrical  industries.  Now,  I  submit  that  it 
is  a  well-known  fact  that  in  the  hydro-electrical  industries,  and  in 
the  electrical  industries  in  general,  only  a  small  number  of  people 
are  required  in  order  to  form  that  fourth  shift  which  is  necessary 
for  securing  the  day  of  rest.  In  the  chemical  industries  the  laborers 
required  are  mostly  unskilled,  and  can  be  easily  obtained.  In  the 
steel  industries,  it  is  possible  with  a  little  good  will,  by  employing 
the  partly  skilled,  and  by  arranging  the  turns  with  the  use  of  sub¬ 
stitutes,  to  find  this  fourth  shift  for  the  day  of  rest. 

Therefore,  there  is  no  very  great  difficulty  in  this  matter  of  securing 
the  48-hour  week  for  all  these  industries  and  I  speak  from  practical 
experience.  I  maintain  that  the  date  proposed  in  the  report  for 
introducing  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  the  1st  of  July,  1921, 
is  a  postponement  to  a  degree  that  is  unnecessary.  In  Italy  in  Feb¬ 
ruary  an  arrangement  was  made  between  tht?  workers  and  the  em¬ 
ployers  in  the  steel  industry  whereby  they  were  to  give  the  48-hour 
week  to  their  workers  beginning  from  the  1st  of  August.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  gentlemen,  they  were  able  to  start  the  48-hour  week 
on  the  1st  of  May. 

I  do  not  wish  unduly  to  take  up  the  time  of  this  conference  where 
it  is  desirable  that  all  express  their  ideas.  But  I  believe  that  this 
conference  will  not  oppose  the  recognition  of  the  8-hour  day  and 
the  48-hour  week  for  the  workers,  and  I  further  believe  that  all  the 
delegates  present  will  work  to  see  that  these  rights  of  labor  are 
recognized. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barnes,  of  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Might  I  raise  a  point  of  order, 
sir,  and  ask  for  your  guidance?  Yesterday  the  conference  adopted 
a  resolution  which  contained  two  principles:  First,  that  we  should 
accept  the  draft  convention  prepared  for  us  by  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee,  with  the  elimination  of  the  words  about  the  48-hour  week; 
and,  second,  that  we  should  set  up  a  committee  to  deal  with  those 
special  countries  that  required  special  treatment.  Now,  I  don’t 
want  to  say  a  word  about  the  latter.  I  suppose  that  is  a  matter  for 
the  committee  of  selection,  to  set  up  the  committee.  That  will  be 
done  in  due  course. 

I  want  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  ask  your  ruling  about  the  first  part. 
That  first  part  commits  the  conference  to  the  acceptance  of  the  draft 
convention  as  prepared  for  us  as  a  basis  of  discussion.  We  have  had 
discussion  for  the  last  two  days,  and  it  occurs  to  me  that  it  is  time 
that  we  were  focusing  the  discussion  upon  some  special  points  at 
a  particular  time. 


54 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Of  course,  I  do  not  wish,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  any  way  to  encroach 
upon  your  functions.  I  am  only  asking  for  information.  It  does 
seem  to  me  that  we  have  gone  beyond  the  time  for  general  talk 
in  the  course  of  which  in  any  one  speech  one  speaker  can  deal 
with  the  date  at  which  the  convention  shall  go  into  operation, 
the  question  of  a  Saturday  half  holiday,  or  the  question  of  con¬ 
tinuous  shifts,  and,  generally  speaking,  of  anything  within  or  without 
the  four  walls  of  this  convention. 

Might  I  suggest  that  we  have  your  ruling  as  to  whether  or  not 
we  could  fix  a  time  limit  beyond  which  we  should  not  indulge  in 
general  discussion  but  should  focus  the  attention  of  the  conference 
on  some  particular  points?  For  instance,  the  convention  head 
admits  of  an  amendment  here  proposed  which  raises  the  question 
which  has  more  than  once  or  twice  been  mentioned  during  the 
course  of  the  general  discussion;  that  is,  the  question  as  to  whether 
we  should  have  a  convention  embodying  the  principle  of  a  48-hour 
week  or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  the  convention  should  be 
one  of  an  8-hour  day,  carrying  with  it  a  44-hour  week  if  you 
are  going  to  have  a  Saturday  half  holiday. 

I  would  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that,  at  your  discretion  and  as 
soon  as  possible,  we  should  invite  amendments.  The  first  amend 
ment,  it  seems  to  me,  should  be  to  substitute  the  words  “an  8-hour- 
day,  having  48  hours  in  the  week.”  That  I  think,  at  all  events, 
would  focus  attention  on  one  particular  point.  I  know  that  by 
your  standing  orders,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  can  not  submit  an  amend¬ 
ment  until  it  has  been  circulated  in  conference,  but  might  I  suggest 
that  you  might  ask  the  conference  to  agree — if  you  like  to-morrow 
morning  or  somewhat  a  little  later — that  amendments  should  be 
taken  and  by  that  time  that  all  amendments  on  the  first  clause  of 
the  convention  should  be  in  your  hands? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Part  XIII,  the  labor  part  of  the  peace  treaty, 
states  in  the  preamble  the  following: 

Whereas  conditions  of  labor  exist  involving  such  injustice,  hardship,  and  privation 
to  large  numbers  of  people  as  to  produce  unrest  so  great  that  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  the  world  are  imperiled;  and  an  improvement  of  those  conditions  is  urgently  re¬ 
quired,  as,  for  example,  by  the  regulation  of  the  hours  of  work,  including  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  a  maximum  working  day  and  week  *  *  *. 

The  agenda,  provided  in  the  same  part  for  the  consideration  of  this 
conference,  includes  the  application  of  the  principle  of  the  8-hour 
day  or  the  48-hour  week.  , 

An  organizing  committee  was  created  for  the  purpose  of  assisting 
in  the  preparation  of  the  data  in  connection  with  the  various  items 
of  the  agenda.  That  organizing  committee  reported,  recommending 
or  suggesting  a  draft  of  a  convention  to  limit  the  hours  of  work  in 
industrial  undertakings  to  48  in  the  week.  A  motion  was  made  by 
the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes  that  this  draft  of  the  convention  be  taken 
as  the  basis  of  discussion.  The  Chair  takes  the  position  that  the 
adoption  of  that  motion  brings  the  draft  of  the  convention  presented 
by  the  organizing  committee  before  the  conference  exactly  in  the 
same  manner  as  if  the  subject  matter  had  been  submitted  to  a  com¬ 
mittee  created  by  this  conference  and  the  committee  had  reported 
back,  that  the  subject  matter  of  the  report  of  that  committee  would 
be  subject  to  amendment  as  long  as  the  amendments  were  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  language  of  the  treaty  of  peace  itself  and  the 
language  of  the  agenda. 

In  other  words,  as  long  as  the  proposed  amendment  was  germane 
to  the  subject,  such  amendment  would  be  in  order  before  the  con¬ 
ference.  Coming  before  the  conference  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
report  from  a  committee  would  come,  it  would  then  be  subject  to 
general  debate,  but  that  the  general  debate  must  itself  be  germane 
to  the  particular  part  of  the  agenda  under  consideration.  In  other 
words,  it  must  be  germane  to  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week 
or  both.  Any  discussion  while  this  part  of  the  agenda  is  under 
consideration  that  is  not  germane  to  these  things  Would  not  be  in 
order.  After  the  general  discussion  is  over,  the  report  would  then 
be  read  item  by  item,  and  at  that  stage  each  item  as  it  was  reached 
would  be  subject  to  amendment,  amendments  germane  to  the 
particular  item  under  consideration.  The  Chair  has  no  power  under 
the  rules  to  name  the  time  at  which  general  debates  will  cease,  but 


the  conference  itself  has  the  power  to  name  that  time  and  the  time 
when  it  will  proceed  to  consider  the  report,  item  by  item. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  understand  that  by 
your  ruling,  which  I  quite  agree  with,  that  we  are  now  at  liberty 
to  continue  the  discussion  on  the  eight-hour  day? 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  the  understanding,  and  the  Chair 
was  about  to  recognize  the  representative  from  Czecho-Slovakia. 
Mr.  Tayerle,  of  the  Czecho  Slovakia  delegation. 

Mr.  TAYERLE  (Czecho-Slovakia).  We  whose  mother  tongue  is 
not  the  official  language  of  the  conference  are  naturally  in  a  rather 
more  difficult  position  than  others.  It  is  obviously  impossible  for 
all  languages  to  be  recognized  here.  We  have  assembled  to  solve 
questions  which  should  unite  and  not  divide  the  nations.  For  this 
reason  I  will  be  content  to  make  only  what  I  consider  the  most 
essential  remarks,  in  order  not  to  delay  the  work  of  the  conference. 
I  will  make  these  remarks  in  French  and  beg  to  be  forgiven  for  any 
grammatical  errors. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  one  of  the  most  important  points  in  the 
agenda  of  this  assembly  is  the  eight-hour  day  and  its  universal 
application.  I  do  not  believe  that  anyone  will  dispute  the  absolute 
necessity  for  the  international  application  of  this  reform  once  it  is 
introduced.  But  there  will  probably  be  a  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  the  draft  itself  which  has  been  submitted  to  us. 

It  is  stated  therein  that  the  eight-hour  day  should  apply  to  indus¬ 
try  only,  exclusive  of  several  exceptions  based  on  the  economic 
and  climatic  conditions  of  different  countries.  Without  taking  these 
exceptions  into  account,  as  they  are,  after  all,  only  matters  of  detail, 
I  can  not  overlook  the  fact  that  this  draft  contains  nothing  relating 
to  the  application  of  the  eight-hour  day  to  commerce  and  agriculture. 
I  am  convinced  that  the  same  principle  can  well  be  applied  to  these 
branches  of  activity,  even  allowing  for  the  restrictions  regarding  the 
difference  in  industrial  and  technical  conditions.  The  protection 
of  the  workers  is  exceedingly  important  for  the  economic  and  moral 
development  of  nations.  The  application  of  a  fixed  length  Jor  the 
working  day  must  be  universal,  in  order  to  protect  such  countries 
as  have  already  recognized  these  claims  by  progressive  legislation. 
It  would  not  be  upholding  the  idealsof  the  League  of  Nations,  if  for 
any  reason  whatever,  we  allowed  countries  in  which  legislation  is 
farthest  advanced  to  suffer  from  the  competition  of  industries 
which  have  entire  freedom  in  the  employment  of  labor. 

I  realize  perfectly  that  the  solution  of  this  problem,  as  well  as  the 
solution  of  any  other  problems,  must  be  subject  to  existing  economic 
and  social  conditions.  Real  progress  depends  on  having  agreement 
between  the  parties  concerned,  i.  e.,  the  employers  and  employees. 
Assistance  by  national  legislation  is  necessary  to  that  end,  however. 
Consequently  we  should  uphold  the  different  countries  in  their 
efforts  in  that  direction. 

I  maintain  that  a  proposal  which  aims  to  extend  the  scope  of  the 
draft  of  the  organizing  committee  is  in  no  wise  revolutionary  in 
character.  In  my  country  the  eight-hour  day  has  been  officially 
and  unanimously  recognized  by  the  National  Assembly,  not  only  for 
industry  but  also  for  commerce  and  agriculture,  as  I  have  already 
stated.  On  that  occasion  the  representatives  of  the  agricultural 
employers  in  the  National  Assembly  made  a  formal  statement  to  the 
effect  that  they  desired  the  same  law  to  apply  to  agriculture  that 
applied  to  industry.  They  gave  as  their  reason  for  this  the  fact  that 
workmen  were  leaving  the  country  for  the  city,  where  better  social 
conditions  obtained. 

In  my  country  the  eight  or  nine  hour  day  for  industry  was  recog¬ 
nized  in  collective  bargaining  before  it  was  confirmed  by  law.  Thus 
the  working  day  was  decreased  by  law  from  11  to  8  hours,  a  reduc¬ 
tion  of  3  hours,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  eighty  cases  out  of  every 
hundred  it  was  decreased  only  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a  half. 

The  law  to  which  I  have  reference  has  been  in  effect  in  .our  country 
for  one  year:  but  there  has  been  no  serious  objection,  nor  opposition 
worth  the  trouble  of  mentioning.  I  beg  you  not  to  forget  that  we 
are  talking  about  a  newly  created  State  whose  economic  situation  is 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


55 


highly  precarious.  The  Czech  countries  were  systematically  ignored 
by  the  old  Austrian  Government.  Everything  that  goes  to  make  up 
our  economic  and  commercial  life  had  been  organized  by  Austria 
in  such  a  way  as  to  injure  the  interests  of  the  Czech  nation,  and  she 
succeeded  so  well  that  to-day  in  many  cases  everything  has  to  be 
made  over. 

Do  not  think  that  workingmen  are  not  thoroughly  cognizant  of  the 
requirements  of  this  epoch.  To  be  sure  we  are  unable  to  prevent 
conflicts — which  explains  the  suffering  experienced  during  five 
years  of  war.  But  I  think  I  may  say  that  these  contests  have  never 
had  the  bitterness  observed  in  countries  where  the  economic  situa¬ 
tion  was  much  better,  countries  which  were  much  less  exhausted 
by  the  war.  That  fact  is  chiefly  due  to  the  adoption  of  the  eight- 
hour  day  by  the  employers  as  necessary  and  as  justly  due  the  working 
class  by  society. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  look  throughout  the  whole  world  and  you 
will  find  the  social  condition  of  the  Czecho-Slovak  Republic  to  be 
the  most  perfect  of  any  country,  in  spite  of  the  war.  That  is  because 
it  tries  through  legislation  to  give  necessary  protection  to  working¬ 
men,  and  thereby  to  establish  a  basis  for  mutual  and  fair  agreement 
between  capital  and  labor.  The  eight-hour  day  is  only  one  of  the 
results  of  this  policy  through  which  our  State  wishes  to  insure  not 
■only  political  freedom,  but  also  economic  freedom,  to  the  working 
class. 

We  are  not  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  there  must  be  certain  excep¬ 
tions.  I  beg  you  to  consider  how  we  have  dealt  with  these  exceptions 
in  our  laws.  Our  law  not  only  permits  a  choice,  according  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  occasion,  between  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour 
week,  but  also  facilitates  the  measurement  of  working  time  by  periods 
of  four  weeks,  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  possible  to  apply  it  to  industries 
of  transport  and  to  agriculture,  according  to  the  type  of  the  produc¬ 
tion  and  the  nature  of  the  climate. 

For  exceptional  requirements  recourse  has  been  had  to  overtime. 
In  this  case  a  distinction  is  made  between  overtime  necessitated  by 
some  catastrophe  or  accident,  and  that  made  obligatory  by  the  season 
or  by  other  urgent  economic  reasons.  In  this  same  law  a  distinc¬ 
tion  is  made  between  so-called  preliminary  work  and  continuous 
work,  i.  e.,  work  in  which  the  change  from  the  day  to  the  night  shift 
and  vice  versa  requires  a  longer  day  than  that  corresponding  to  a 
48-hour  week.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enumerate  the  different  reasons 
for  the  existence  of  this  law.  The  chief  reason  is  the  advantages 
that  have  been  obtained  since  it  went  into  effect  10  months  ago. 

This  position  is  strengthened  by  the  evidence  that  is  given  here  on 
this  question,  considering  it  as  an  international  problem.  And  it 
must  be  considered  in  such  a  light.  It  is  in  the  interest  of  progress 
for  the  principle  of  this  measure  to  be  universally  adopted;  and  the 
application  of  this  principle  according  to  their  climatic  and  economic 
conditions  may  be  left  to  the  different  countries.  The  organiza¬ 
tion  which  should  result  from  this  conference  will  have  to  see  to  it 
that  these  different  methods  of  application  do  not  destroy  the  prin¬ 
ciple  itself,  conservation  of  which  is  essential. 

After  these  few  remarks,  I  take  the  liberty  of  recommending,  in 
agreement  with  the  Government  delegates,  that  the  Czecho-Slovak 
law  on  the  eight-hour  day  be  adopted  as  the  basis  for  international  ap¬ 
plication.  I  therefore  move  that  the  draft  of  the  organizing  commit¬ 
tee  be  modified  by  substituting  the  following  in  the  last  paragraph: 

That  the  principle  of  the  eight-hour  day  be  also  applied  to  commerce  and  agricul¬ 
ture:  and  that  the  application  of  this  principle  be  left  to  the  different  States  according 
to  their  respective  productive  strength. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  call  the  attention  of  the  conference 
to  a  situation  which  we  will  undoubtedly  be  frequently  confronted 
with,  and  that  is  the  difficulty  of  thinking  in  one  language,  writing 
in  another  with  which  we  are  not  very  familiar,  and  then  having  that 
writing  translated  into  a  third  language.  I  feel  that  many  of  the 
members  of  the  conference  will  appreciate  the  difficulties  under 
which  the  representative  from  Czecho-Slovakia  is  laboring. 

Mr.  von  Koch,  of  the  Swedish  delegation. 

Senator  VON  KOCH  (Sweden).  Speaking  as  a  representative  of 
the  Swedish  Government,  I  should  like  first  to  state  that  the  Swedish 


Parliament  adopted,  about  a  month  ago,  an  eight-hour  day  law  which 
will  be  effective  on  the  1st  day  of  January,  1920,  with  the  exception 
only  of  day  and  night  work,  for  which  work  the  eight-hour  day  law 
will  be  applied  on  July  1,  1920. 

Having  so  recently  adopted  the  law,  the  report  of  the  organizing 
committee  does  not  include  the  provisions  of  the  law.  You  will, 
perhaps,  allow  me  to  give,  in  a  few  words,  the  outline  of  the  law. 
This  law  is  based  upon  the  same  principles  as  the  draft  convention 
before  the  conference,  but  it  shows,  in  certain  respects,  considerable 
differences.  I  may  mention  a  few  of  the  more  important  ones,  at 
the  same  time  suggesting  some  modifications  in  the  convention. 

The  Swedish  law  provides  for  the  principle  of  48  hours  a  week 
as  well  as  for  8  hours  a  day.  It  is,  however,  permissible  to  work 
8J  hours  during  the  first  five  days  of  the  week,  thus  making  the 
sixth  day  only  a  half  day. 

I  would  suggest  that  this  provision  be  used  as  a  sort  of  compromise 
between  the  two  different  principles — the  48-hour  week  and  the 
8-hour  day.  Certain  industries  are  exempted  from  the  said  law, 
namely,  industries  employing  not  more  than  four  workers,  and  in¬ 
dustrial  home  work.  On  the  other  hand,  the  law  covers  several 
other  branches  of  work  not  mentioned  in  the  draft  convention,  as, 
for  instance,  the  manufacture  of  peat,  the  cutting  and  transporting 
of  ice  for  domestic  use,  etc. 

With  regard  to  industries  necessitating  continuous  work  during 
the  seven  days  of  the  week,  the  Swedish  law  has  more  stringent 
rules  than  those  proposed  in  the  convention,  exemptions  from  the 
48-hour  rule  being  granted  only  by  permission  of  a  special  labor 
council.  The  reason  for  this  is  that  exceptions  should  be  granted 
only  when  found  absolutely  necessary,  and,  furthermore,  because 
it  is  intended  by  this  procedure  that  the  disadvantages  of  the  seven- 
day  week  should  be  offset  by  the  council  providing  for  special  work¬ 
ing  conditions. 

In  the  list  of  industries  annexed  to  the  draft  of  the  convention, 
as  industries  which  may  be  subject  to  exceptions,  certain  very  im¬ 
portant  industries  are  not  included,  such  as  work  in  wood  pulp 
mills,  sugar  factories,  brick  and  porcelain  factories,  peat  and  char¬ 
coal  burning. 

With  regard  to  certain  preparatory  work,  this  is  reckoned  in 
Sweden  as  overtime  work  and  is  limited  to  10  hours  a  month.  Com¬ 
pared  with  the  convention,  the  Swedish  law  is  strict  on  this  point 

As  to  overtime  work,  the  Swedish  law  does  not  discriminate  in 
regard  to  different  occupations,  because  it  is  very  difficult  to  decide 
in  what  industries  overtime  work  is  needed. 

In  the  Swedish  law  overtime  work  is  limited  not  only  per  year, 
but  also  per  month,  a  regulation  that  seems  useful  from  a  hygienic 
point  of  view.  Overtime  is  limited  to  150  hours  a  year,  but  by 
special  authorization  75  hours  can  be  added.  Only  adult  workers 
are  allowed  to  do  overtime  work. 

Some  very  distinct  provisions  are  made  in  the  Swedish  law  for 
exceptions,  but  these  can  not  be  put  into  practice  without  the 
consent  of  a  labor  council  especially  elected  for  the  purpose,  and 
consisting  of  workers  as  well  as  of  employers  and  also  of  impartial 
persons  appointed  by  the  Government.  Exceptions  can  also  be 
made  when  required  by  the  Government.  ■  Also  it  may  be  possible 
to  defer  action  of  the  law  for  certain  concerns,  if  this  be  found  neces¬ 
sary.  Great  care  is  taken,  however,  that  these  exceptions  should 
not  be  abused,  thus  in  any  way  lessening  the  effect  of  the  law. 

You  will  realize  from  what  I  have  said,  Mr.  President,  that 
some  differences  exist  between  the  Swedish  law  and  the  draft  con¬ 
vention,  but  these  differences  are  not  so  important  as  to  shut  us 
out  from  an  international  convention  based  upon  the  principal 
lines  brought  before  this  conference.  We  hope  that  a  positive 
result  will  be  attained  by  the  conference,  and  we  also  hope  that  it 
will  be  of  such  a  character  as  to  assure  strict  enforcement  of  the 
convention.  We  at  least  intend  strictly  to  enforce  our  law.  It 
would  be  useless  to  have  a  convention  that  would  leave  large  dis¬ 
cretionary  powers  in  the  matter  of  allowing  exceptions  to  each 
State  as  it  might  see  fit.  Of  course,  it  will  not  be  possible  now  to 
arrive  at  conclusions  in  a  good  many  important  details,  but  these 


56 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


could  be  taken  up  -with  the  International  Labor  Office  for  decision 
at  a  later  date. 

In  conclusion,  I  might  state  that  several  countries,  like  Sweden, 
already  have  adopted  an  eight-hour  day  law  and  for  that  reason  may 
find  some  difficulty  in  approving  the  convention  in  all  its  details. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  are — at  least  I  can  say  so  of  Sweden — very 
anxious  that  this  conference  shall  reach  a  definite  result  in  this 
particular  by  adopting  a  convention  that  will  make  the  eight-hour 
day  practically  universal. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Judge  Castberg,  of  the  Norwegian  delegation. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  The  Norwegian  delegates  fully 
recognize  the  detailed  and  broad-minded  way  in  which  the 
organizing  committee  has  gone  into  this  question.  If  we  shall 
succeed  in  uniting  this  conference  on  a  draft  convention  conceived 
in  the  same  spirit,  this,  the  first  international  conference  after  the 
war,  will  have  done  a  great  work  and  taken  a  substantial  step  toward 
social  justice  and  international  peace.  What  lies  behind  this 
conference  on  this  important  point  of  the  agenda  is  not  only  the 
treaty  of  peace  but  also  the  fact  that  a  great  many  countries,  by 
establishing  laws  which  stipulate  an  8-hour  day  or  a  48-hour 
week,  have  already  anticipated  the  present  conference.  Norway 
belongs  to  this  group  of  countries,  through  its  law  of  July,  1919. 
Years  prior  to  that  time  Norway  had  enacted  a  law  fixing  uniform 
working-days  for  adult  workers,  men  as  well  as  women,  the 
ordinary  time  of  work  not  to  exceed  56  hours  a  week  for  workers 
in  handicraft  and  industries.  Through  the  introduction  of  extra 
shifts  this  limitation  was  in  fact  also  applied  in  continuous  processes. 
By  the  law  of  July,  1919,  Norway  has  now  established  a  48-hour 
week,  and  not  exceeding  an  8£-hour  day,  in  workshops  and  facto¬ 
ries,  in  building  and  construction  work,  storage  and  warehousing, 
yards,  steamship  offices,  etc.  The  48-hour  week  had  already  been 
introduced  in  practice  through  agreement  between  employers  and 
workmen  before  the  law  of  1919  was  enacted,  Opinion  in  Norway 
was  so  strong  and  united  on  this  question  that  the  law  just  mentioned 
was  adopted  in  the  Norwegian  Parliament  by  a  unanimous  vote.  ' 

A  series  of  important  questions  arises  in  connection  with  the 
application  of  the  principle:  first,  the  question  which  has  now  been 
discussed.  Would  it  be  preferable  to  have  an  8-hour  day  with  a 
shorter  time  of  work  on  Saturday,  which  would  mean  a  shorter 
working  week  than  48  hours?  About  this  question  I  will  only  say 
that  it  appears  to  me  that  this  question  of  application  should  be  left 
to  the  decision  of  each  country,  and  that  the  international  agreement 
should  confine  itself  to  establishing  an  8-hour  day  or  a  48-hour  week 
as  the  ordinary  maximum  time  of  work;  but  that  the  workday  time 
must  not  exceed  8J  hours  within  this  weekly  limit  of  48  hours 
a  week.  At  this  conference  I  think  that  would  be  the  most  prac¬ 
ticable,  and  then  it  would  also  be  in  conformity  with  the  new  law 
of  my  country. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  have  liked  to  go  into  the  problem  and  its 
main  points  at  large,  especially  the  question  of  continuous  labor  and 
overtime.  As  the  general  discussion  has  already  lasted  a  con¬ 
siderable  time,  and  according  to  my  opinion  it  will  be  better  to  come 
to  the  main  points  separately  as  soon  as  possible,  I  now  only  sum  up 
the  Norwegian  Government  delegates’  opinion  of  the  other  most 
important  points  of  the  draft  convention  in  this  way :  The  Government 
delegates  from  Norway  are  in  agreement  with  the  draft  convention 
report  of  the  organizing  committee,  with  some  reservations  according 
to  the  Norwegian  law. 

First.  The  48-hour  week  should  be  applied  also  to  workmen 
employed  in  processes  which  must  be  carried  on  continuously  by  a 
succession  of  shifts,  by  introducing  extra  shifts. 

Second.  Work  performed  outside  the  ordinary  period  of  work  in 
processes  enumerated  in  schedule  B  should  be  considered  as  over¬ 
time  in  so  far  as  the  hours  of  work  for  workmen  in  such  processes 
exceed  8  a  day  or  48  a  week. 

Third.  The  right  to  require  overtime  work  ought  to  be  more  lim¬ 
ited  than  proposed  in  the  draft  convention,  section  6-A,  under 
schedule  C,  for  instance,  chiefly  along  the  lines  laid  down  by  the 
Norwegian  law.  I  will  not  go  into  the  details  of  that  now. 

Fourth.  The  number  of  permissible  overtime  hours  ought  to  be 
limited  not  only  as  regards  the  entire  year,  but  also  for  shorter 


periods;  for  instance,  for  each  calendar  month  oi  for  each  consecu¬ 
tive  four  weeks. 

Fifth.  Payment  for  overtime  work  ought  to  be  stipulated  at  a 
minimum  rate  higher  by  at  least  50  per  cent  than  the  normal  rate 
of  pay. 

For  the  reasons  I  just  mentioned  I  will  not,  at  this  moment,  go 
into  fuller  details  of  the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived, 
the  conference  will  stand  adjourned  until  2.30  o’clock  to-morrow 
afternoon. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.05  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Friday,  November  7,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  1^5 vie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 
Hon.  Newton  V.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 
China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainzy  de  los  Reyes. 
Czecho-Slo  vakia : 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Eiizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gu4rin. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantaeuztae. 

Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Haiti: 

Mr.  Charles  Moravia. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  Des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  Jan  Oudegeest. 

N  icaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Me 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Ashghai  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Car  los  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymei. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos<5  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykoviteh  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mi.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Lai  go  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  lot 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  SJoborg). 

Senator  R.  O.  Halfrcd  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Svdow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler 
Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Vaiela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Domlnid. 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


5? 


NINTH  SESSION— FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER  7,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.35  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wil¬ 
son,  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read  correspondence  and 
make  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  only  point  I  want  to  men¬ 
tion  is  that  of  seating.  As  you  see,  the  seating  arrangements  have 
been  entirely  altered  with  a  view  to  overcoming,  if  possible,  the 
difficulties  which  were  experienced  by  some  of  the  delegates  seated 
at  the  farthest  end  of  the  room.  The  rearrangement  is  experi¬ 
mental,  and  I  should  be  glad  to  have  expressions  of  opinion  at  the 
end  of  this  session  as  to  whether  this  seating  is  more  convenient 
than  the  old  arrangement. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Parsons,  of  the  Canadian  delegation,  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  •  Mr.  President,  being  a  member  of  the 
employers’  delegation  who  could  not  see  his  way  clear  to  subscribe 
to  the  declaration  and  the  proposition  brought  into  this  house  by  Mr. 
Marjoribanks,  representing  the  employers  in  general,  I  would  like 
to  have  the  opportunity  of  stating  my  reasons  for  not  joining  in 
that  proposition  and  of  making  some  general  observations  upon  the 
question  under  discussion. 

In  the  first  place,  it  appears  to  me  that  those  who  were  responsible 
for  bringing  forward  the  draft  convention — to  which  we  have  been 
giving  consideration — have  brought  forward  something  which  they 
have  tried  to  fit  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  represented,  but 
hardly  with  success.  It  is  as  though  they  handed  out  a  suit  of  ready¬ 
made  clothes  to  the  different  countries,  irrespective  of  their  size  or 
of  their  conditions,  and  had  tried  to  make  the  same  fit.  In  our 
country,  in  the  ready-made  clothing  industry,  they  have,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  each  large  concern,  what  they  call,  I  understand,  a 
butcher,  whose  business  it  is  to  try  and  make  fit  any  ready-made 
garments  that  are  put  upon  the  customer.  Now,  it  appears  to  me 
that  in  connection  with  this  labor  program,  of  the  eight-hour  day  in 
particular,  that  we  need  a  butcher  for  each  country  in  order  to  make 
the  program  fit  as  submitted  to  us. 

I  submit  that  the  first  consideration  before  us  in  this  matter  is 
the  welfare  of  the  workmen.  And  in  that  proposition  I  am  sure  I 
will  carry  the  judgment  of  every  delegate  and  of  every  adviser 
in  this  house.  I  have  a  firm  belief  in  cooperative  methods,  and 
committees,  and  commissions — what  you  call  perhaps  in  the  old 
land,  shop  committees.  I  also  believe  in  the  weekly  day  of 
rest.  I  also  believe  in  profit  sharing.  I  believe  in  everything  that 
can  be  done  in  every  individual  industry  in  order  to  further  the 
interests  of  the  worker.  I  believe  that  the  day  has  come  when 
we  can  all  say  with  Charles  Dickens,  “When  men  and  women  seem 
by  one  consent  to  open  their  shut-up  hearts  freely  and  to  think 
of  people  around  them  as  if  they  really  were  fellow  passengers  to 
the  grave  and  not  another  race  of  creatures  bound  on  other  journeys.” 

I  do  not,  therefore,  object  to  this  eight-hour  day,  per  se.  My 
objection  comes  from  the  fact  that  in  the  present  world-wide  con¬ 
ditions  we  are  not  prepared  for  it  and  that  we  can  not  fit  it 
to  our  individual  country’s  economic  system.  The  question  of 
hours  is  particularly  a  national  and  international  economic  ques¬ 
tion.  And  let  me  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  looking  at  it  in  this 
regard,  the  Governments  of  the  countries  concerned,  the  employers’ 
delegates  representing  the  different  countries,  and  the  employees 
are  all  equally  concerned  in  a  proper,  a  just,  and  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  this  great  question. 

Let  me  repeat  again  that  this  question  should  not  be  considered 
by  any  one  class  of  people  in  any  one  country  or  in  all  the  countries 
of  the  world.  It  must  be  considered  as  a  national,  a  great  national 
question,  to  which  each  one  of  us  must  give  his  very  best  con¬ 
sideration.  What  is  the  condition  of  the  world  to-day?  You  will 
agree  with  me  in  saying  that  there  has  been  physical  and  material 
devastation  in  all  the  war-worn  countries  of  Europe;  that  there  is 


a  great  shortage  of  man  power  in  all  the  countries;  that  there  is  a 
lack  of  foodstuffs;  that  we  have  huge  national  obligations  which 
must  be  considered  and  met.  In  a  word,  the  countries  of  the 
world  have  mortgaged  their  futures,  and  to-day  we  ought  to  give 
consideration  to  the  question  as  to  how  the  mortgage  will  be  paid, 
for  it  assuredly  meets  us  on  every  hand.  The  world  is  not  suffering 
to-day  on  account  of  long  hours,  my  friends.  The  world  is  suffering 
to-day  for  lack  of  food  and  clothing. 

If  my  information  is  correct,  and  I  believe  it  to  be,  there  are 
100,000,000  people  on  the  verge  of  starvation  in  the  Old  World  to-day. 
Not  one-third  of  all  the  industries  of  the  Old  World  are  producing 
at  full  capacity.  What  situation  does  this  reveal  to  us?  Is  it  a 
time  when  we  ought  to  be  considering  shorter  hours,  which,  to  my 
mind,  necessarily  mean  lack  of  production? 

What  did  we  hear  from  our  delegate  of  the  French  employers? 
That  since  the  eight-hour  day  had  been  introduced  in  France  there 
had  been  a  corresponding  falling  off  in  production;  that  a  reduction 
from  10  to  8  hours  a  day  meant  a  20  per  cent  reduction  in  production. 

Will  shorter  hours  make  up  this  lack?  What  have  we  before  us  as 
a  proposition  in  connection  with  the  hours?  The  draft  convention 
calling  for  a  week  of  48  hours;  my  friends  of  labor  from  Canada,  and 
I  think,  perhaps,  some  other  countries,  calling  for  a  week  of  44  hours; 
and  the  miners  of  this  country  calling  for  a  week  of  30  hours. 

Have  you  ever  thought  that  if  we  are  to  have  a  maximum  of  hours 
of  work  that  it  might  be  also  wise  to  have  a  minimum  in  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  world’s  great  need? 

The  country  which  I  have  the  honor  of  representing  as  an  em¬ 
ployers’  delegate  at  this  convention,  Canada,  is,  like  its  great  sis¬ 
ter  on  the  south,  one  of  the  great  food-producing  countries  of  the 
world.  This  North  American  Continent  is  the  bread  basket  of  the 
world.  I  noticed  that  the  Right  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  speech 
the  other  day,  in  speaking  of  this  draft  convention,  specially- 
emphasized  the  fact  that  agriculture  was  excluded.  Now,  my 
friends,  what  does  it  mean  when  we  exclude  agriculture  in  a  coun¬ 
try  like  Canada,  and  I  should  think — although  I  have  no  right  to 
speak  for  this  country — in  a  country  like  the  United  States? 

It  means  this  in  Canada:  We  have  to-day  a  shortage*  of  man 
power  on  our  farms;  everywhere  the  farmers  in  our  great  agricul¬ 
tural  stretches  are  crying  out  for  more  help,  and  they  can’t  get  it. 
And  what  is  the  consequence?  A  great  loss  of  production  and 
higher  prices. 

We  talk  about  profiteering.  Profiteering  is  only  a  symptom. 
There  would  be  no  profiteering  if  we  had  plenty  of  production  the 
world  over;  but  it  is  the  shortage  of  production  that  is  responsible 
for  profiteering.  And  what  do  you  do  for  the  farmers  when  you 
try  to  bring  in  a  short  working-day  in  industry?  You  may  say 
that  you  do  not  interfere  with  agriculture.  Let  us  look  at  it  a 
moment.  You  simply  draw,  as  if  by  a  magnet,  the  workers 
from  the  farms  into  our  towns  and  cities  because  of  the  shorter 
hours,  the  high  wages,  and  the  lights  and  shades  of  city  life. 

Who  will  suffer  on  account  of  the  shortage  of  foodstuffs  provided 
by  the  farms  because  of  the  shorter  hours  drawing  the  workers  into 
the  towns  and  cities?  In  the  first  place,  the  workers  themselves 
will  be  the  first  to  suffer  because  of  this  shortage  and  the  consequent 
higher  prices.  In  the  next  place  the  farmers  will  suffer.  How? 
Because  their  children — the  boys  and  the  girls — and  the  men  and 
the  women  will  be  drawn  to  city  life,  thus  causing  a  smaller  pro¬ 
duction  and  less  profit.  Then,  again,  the  farmers  are  bound  to 
suffer  in  another  way:  The  shorter  hours  in  city  life,  in  towns,  in 
our  industries,  will  make  dearer  agricultural  implements,  and 
dearer  food  and  clothing,  and  thus  the  farmer  is  hit  both  ways; 
in  the  first  place,  because  he  has  not  men  enough  to  work  his 
farm  to  produce  what  is  necessary;  and,  in  the  second  place,  because 
all  that  he  uses  in  the  way  of  manufactured  articles  is  increased 
greatly  in  price.  Not  only  that — I  am  speaking  for  my  own  country 


58 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


and  yet  I  believe  it  applies,  as  I  have  said,  equally  to  this  country 
and  to  other  grain-growing  countries  of  the  world — for  if  there  is  a 
shortage  of  foodstuffs  in  our  agricultural  districts  in  this  North 
American  Continent,  the  workers  all  over  the  world  are  bound  to 
suffer.  They  are  bound  to  suffer  because  of  the  shortage.  They 
are  bound  to  suffer  because  of  the  consequent  higher  prices.  I  ask 
you,  therefore,  if  you  consider  that  it  would  be  sound  economically, 
in  the  present  situation  and  circumstances  of  the  world,  to  create 
such  a  shortage  as  will  surely  be  created  by  shortening  working 
hours. 

Again,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  I  object  to  this  draft  con¬ 
vention  which  has  been  presented  to  us  on  account  of  the  fact  that 
it  contains  so  many  exceptions  of  one  kind  and  another,  refer¬ 
ring  to  one  country  and  another,  that  it  will  cause  great  discontent 
among  those  who  are  thus  excepted  from  its  operation.  Take  again 
our  own  country  of  Canada.  We  have  great  seasonal  occupations, 
for  instance  the  lumbering  industry,  which  is  one  of  our  great  in¬ 
dustries  from  east  to  west ;  it  is  well  known  that  you  can  only  carry 
on  the  lumbering  industry  when  you  have  the  water  to  run  the  logs. 
In  part  of  our  country,  as  in  some  other  countries  which  perhaps  have 
not  the  lumbering  industry  as  we  have,  we  are  frozen  up  for  a  num¬ 
ber  of  months  of  the  year,  and  therefore  we  must  make  hay  while 
the  sun  shines.  Also  there  is  a  great  difference  in  climate  in  our 
wide  stretching  country.  On  the  far  west,  British  Columbia  has  a 
climate  somewhat  like  Great  Britain.  On  the  east  it  is  frozen  up 
for  four  or  five  months  of  the  year.  You  will  see  at  once  that  the 
exceptions  applying  on  account  of  our  great  differences  of  climate, 
and  other  factors,  will  mean  that  there  will  be  so  many  industries 
and  workers  excepted,  that  those  workers  who  are  excepted  will 
become  utterly  dissatisfied. 

Those  who  have  to  work  a  larger  number  of  hours  than  the  proposed 
eight-hour  day,  if  that  should  come  into  effect,  will  soon  say,  “We 
are  not  going  to  work  longer  than  our  friends  who  have  the  shorter 
period,”  and  thus  again  you  decrease  production  and  cause  dissatis¬ 
faction  among  the  workers. 

■  Unlike  Great  Britain,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  Right 
Hon.  Mr.  Barnes,  we  did  not  promise  our  workers,  either  before  the 
war  or  during  the  war,  that  their  conditions  of  labor  would  be  al¬ 
tered,  that  they  would  have  shorter  hours,  or  anything  of  that  nature. 
Our  workers  in  Canada  put  their  backs  into  their  work  in  the  first 
place  because  they  were  loyal  to  the  cause,  and  in  the  next  place 
because  they  received  higher  wages  than  ever  they  secured  before. 
In  all  honesty  I  am  bound  to  say  that  some  of  them,  especially 
working  on  piecework  in  the  munitions,  worked  harder  than  they 
should  have  done  because  of  these  higher  wages. 

I  know  it  may  be  said  that  at  the  present  time  there  is  no  par¬ 
ticular  standard  of  hours,  and  therefore  there  are  many  exceptions 
to  what  may  be  called  even  a  sort  of  a  general  rule  as  to  working 
hours.  But,  at  the  present  time  it  is  recognized  by  all  the  work¬ 
ers  that  there  are  different  hours  which  apply  to  different  indus¬ 
tries,  and  these  are  understood.  If  we  try  to  bring  in  what  is  called 
the  universal  eight-hour  day,  then  we  are  faced  almost  at  once  by 
the  necessity  of  extending  that  day  and  those  hours  of  work  to 
seasonal  and  other  occupations,  and  that,  to  my  mind,  will  be  the 
cause  of  great  dissatisfaction. 

There  is,  however,  another  very  serious  objection,  perhaps  one  of 
the  most  serious  objections  that  can  be  brought  forward  against  the 
legislation  which  is  proposed  in  this  draft  convention.  It  is  the 
attempt  to  deal  by  legislation  with  business  matters.  This  is  an 
economic  problem,  and  I  fear  that  if  we  try  to  settle  it  in  our  leg¬ 
islative  halls  in  a  political  way,  it  will  receive  a  political  and  not 
an  economic  answer.  The  more  business  interests  of  any  country 
get  into  the  hands  of  the  government  and  politicians  the  more 
difficult  it  is  to  keep  out  influences  which  should  never  come  be¬ 
tween  one  class  and  another  in  any  country. 

In  the  case  of  Canada  we  have  nine  different  Provinces  dealing 
with  the  labor  question.  I  understand  the  same  is  the  case  in  the 
United  States,  where  48  legislatures  deal  with  the  labor  question. 


You  can  therefore  see  how  difficult  it  is  to  arrive  at  any  agreement, 
when  you  consider  the  different  interests  of  these  different  Provinces 
or  States. 

In  my  opinion  an  attempt  to  limit  the  hours  of  work  will  mean  the 
deathblow  to  small  industries  and  would  prevent  starting  new  ones. 
Let  me  explain  what  I  mean.  The  great  majority  of  employers,  on 
this  continent  at  all  events,  have  come  up  from  the  ranks  or  have 
had  next  to  nothing  to  start  with.  How  have  they  succeeded  in 
coming  to  their  present  positions  in  the  industrial  world?  It  has 
been  by  working  long  hours,  or  rather  with  no  regard  to  hours;  also  by 
thrift,  the  practice  of  economy,  ambition,  and  by  accumulating  sav¬ 
ings.  A  man  starts  in  a  very  modest  way.  Perhaps  he  would  gather 
about  him  three  or  four  or  a  dozen  workers  who  are  possibly  interested 
with  him  in  some  way  in  the  venture.  He  works  long  hours  because 
he  knows  that  he  is  up  against  large  industries  with  great  capital  and 
ability  to  do  what  he  could  not  possibly  do.  The  only  way  that  he 
can  get  a  start  is  to  work  longer  and  to  secure  men  who  will  work 
with  him.  In  that  way  he  gradually  gets  ahead  and  assumes  a  place 
in  industrial  life  of  which  he  may  well  be  proud.  That  is  the  history, 
1*  venture  to  say,  of  nine-tenths  of  the  employers  on  this  continent. 
If  it  is  true  of  individual  employers,  I  submit  that  it  is  likewise  true 
of  the  small  and  newer  nations.  It  will  be  the  larger  nations,  if  we 
go  into  this  universal  eight-hour  day,  that  will  have  the  great  benefit. 
They  will  have  the  benefit  of  raw  materials.  They  will  have  the 
benefit  of  capital.  They  will  have  the  benefit  of  transportation,  and, 
therefore,  they,  like  the  great  industrial  corporations,  will  cut  the 
melon.  That  is  the  way  business  tends,  either  individually  or 
nationally,  these  days. 

There  is  another  reason  why,  as  representing  the  employers  of 
Canada,  I  can  not  agree  to  become  one  of  the  signers  of  this  draft 
convention.  It  is  that,  along  with  our  friends  of  the  United  States, 
we  inhabit  the  North  American  Continent.  These  two  countries 
have  interests  in  common.  Our  industrial  life  is  much  the  same. 
Our  wages  are  about  the  same.  Our  social  conditions  are  almost 
identical.  We  have  similar  aims  and  similar  industrial  aspirations. 

The  United  States  has  not  yet  signed  the  treaty  of  peace.  I  do 
not  know,  and  I  suppose  none  of  us  knows,  whether  the  United 
States  will  sign  the  treaty  of  peace,  or,  if  they  do,  whether  the  reserva¬ 
tions  which  they  may  see  fit  to  make  will  be  of  such  a  character  that 
they  will  reserve  to  themselves  certain  matters  regarding  labor  con¬ 
ditions,  as  well  as  other  considerations.  In  other  words,  the  uncer¬ 
tainty  that  there  is  in  connection  with  this  matter  in  the  United 
States  would  make  it  suicidal  for  us,  their  small  neighbor,  in  point 
of  population,  in  the  north,  to  agree  to  what  they  had  not  adhered 
to.  We  have  eight  or  nine  millions  population.  Our  industries 
are  young.  They  lack  capital.  We  are  struggling.  We  are  along¬ 
side  a  magnificent  country  of  one  hundred  and  ten  millions  in 
population,  with  great  industries  and  great  wealth.  It  is  quite  easy 
to  understand,  therefore,  that  until  the  United  States  has  spoken 
Canada  must  keep  silent. 

In  closing,  I  would  say  that  in  Canada  in  the  month  of  Sep¬ 
tember  we  held  a  great  national  conference  at  the  seat  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  Ottawa.  There  was  represented  in  that  conference  an 
equal  number  of  representatives  of  employers,  of  employed,  and  of 
theGovernment  and  the  public.  The  employers’  delegates  could  not 
agree  with  the  employees  in  connection  with  this  proposition  of  the 
eight-hour  day.  We,  therefore,  as  employers,  sent  forward  our  own 
resolution  to  the  Government  of  Canada,  asking  that  a  commission 
be  appointed  which  would  give  thorough  study  to  this  important  sub¬ 
ject,  and  that  upon  this  commission  there  would  be  represented 
an  equal  number  of  employers  and  of  employed.  That  question, 
therefore,  so  far  as  our  country  is  concerned,  we  hope  will  be  studied 
in  the  light  of  all  the  facts,  so  that  there  will  be  no  hasty  conclusion 
reached,  otherwise  we  might  arrive  at  a  decision  which  might  inter¬ 
fere  with  our  country’s  development  and  well-being. 

Let  me  say  that  I  know  I  am  speaking  for  the  employers  of  Canada, 
and  I  feel  sure  that  I  am  speaking  for  all  the  employers  represented 
in  this  conference,  when  I  say  that  we  hope  that  the  day  will  come 


INTERNATIONAL  L 

when  by  the  introduction  of  machinery  to  a  greater  extent  than  at 
present,  as  well  as  by  labor-saving  devices,  the  hours  of  work  may 
be  greatly  reduced  from  what  they  now  are.  Personally  I  will  hail 
that  day  on  behalf,  let  me  say,  of  my  fellow  workers — for  I  have 
worked  all  my  life — and  I  would  be  glad,  like  others,  of  a  little  bit 
of  respite  from  the  long  hours  and  toil  of  a  lifetime.  1  don’t  believe 
that  that  time  has  arrived  yet.  My  principal  objection,  therefore, 
is  that,  in  view  of  the  world’s  needs,  we  certainly  should  not  con¬ 
sider  shortening  the  hours  ot  toil  and,  therefore,  to  my  mind,  decreas¬ 
ing  production. 

Social  welfare  for  any  or  all  classes  of  the  people  will  never  be 
attained  by  uneconomic  regulations.  It  is  utterly  impossible.  If 
any  one  class  in  a  community  obtains  an  unfair  advantage  the  other 
classes  must  suffer,  and  we  can  not  bring  forward  in  any  country  of 
the  world  to-day  any  regulations  which  are  not  based  on  a  proper 
economic  footing  and  attain  what  we  call  social  justice.  The  thing 
can  not  be  done.  The  two  things  do  not  work  together. 

Let  me  just  state  that  if  we  attempt  this  it  is  the  surest  way  of 
wrecking  our  civilization,  and  we  have  the  best  civilization  to-day 
that  the  world  has  ever  brought  forward.  Let  us  take  care  of  it 
and  mend  it  here  and  there,  but  not  attempt  to  destroy  it. 

I  would  like  to  read  two  or  three  words1  by  Mr.  W.  A.  Appleton, 
president  of  the  International  Federation  of  Trades-Unions.  Mr. 
Appleton  points  out  that  “Phrases  and  catch  words  are  everywhere 
taking  the  place  of  production.  Unless  the  world  produces  it  can 
not  live.” 

lie  says,  “The  State  is  often  described  as  a  ship.  To-day  the 
ship  is  on  a  lee  shore  and  all  hands  must  work  at  maximum  speed 
if  she  is  to  be  saved  from  utter  wreck.” 

Gentlemen,  let  us  face  present  conditions  as  honest  men,  whether 
representing  our  Governments,  employers,  or  employees,  and  work 
out  this  question  in  accordance  with  economic  standards.  [Ap¬ 
plause.  | 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  been  requested  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  to  extend  an  invitation  to  the  officers,  the  members,  and 
advisers  of  this  conference  to  take  a  trip  on  the  U.  S.  S.  Mayflower 
to  Mount  Vernon,  the  home  in  life  and  the  last  resting  place  of  our 
immortal  Washington.  The  vessel  will  leave  the  navy  yard  piers 
at  2  o’clock  to-morrow  afternoon.  [Applause.] 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  is  recognized. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  The  Italian  delegation 
feels  confident  that  it  faithfully  interprets  the  sentiments  of  the 
conference  when  it  heartily  thanks  our  worthy  president  for  his 
gracious  communication,  and  begs  him  to  express  our  gratitude  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

The  invitation  extended  us  fulfills  the  wishes  of  us  all,  and  in 
particular  the  wishes  of  the  Italian  delegation,  one  member  of 
which  has  already  asked  for  the  floor  on  this  subject. 

We  shall  be  happy  to  render  homage  to  the  memory  of  the  first  of 
the  long  line  of  illustrious  men  who  have  filled  the  high  station  of 
President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  first  in  time  and  the 
first  in  merit,  the  man  of  so  many  eminent  qualifications,  whose 
purity  of  patriotism  was  on  a  par  with  his  lofty  character. 

We  shall  be  happy  to  pay  our  respects  at  the  threshold  of  his  tomb, 
and  to  visit  the  house  which  was  the  cherished  abode  of  the  modern 
Cincinnatus  and  his  admirable  helpmate  Martha  Washington,  whose 
name  should  be  coupled  with  that  of  Gen.  George  Washington  in 
this  meeting  where,  for  the  good  of  humanity,  the  rights  of  women 
are  receiving  the  same  enlightened  attention  as  the  rights  of  men. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  motion  by  Baron  Mayor 
des  Planches.  As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  raise  their  right 
hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed.  Agreed  to  unanimously.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  Jouhaux  is  recognized. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  On  behalf  of  the  workers’  delegates,  I 
am  commissioned  to  express  to  you  the  general  views  entertained 


ABOR  CONFERENCE  59 

by  the  workers  on  the  question  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour 
week. 

To  be  sure,  what  I  am  going  to  put  before  you  is  not  the  complete 
expression  of  the  workers’  sentiments.  The  explanation  which  we  are 
making,  the  amendments  which  we  propose,  are  in  certain  respects 
lower  than  the  standards  attained  in  certain  countries.  It  seems  to 
us  that  in  this  conference  it  is  not  only  a  question  of  stating  the 
different  national  situations,  but  also  of  endeavoring  to  bring  about 
international  adjustments,  and  that  in  consequence,  regardless  of 
our  sentiments  or  wishes,  we,  as  well  as  others,  are  under  obligation 
to  make  concessions  to  which  otherwise  we  should  not  consent. 

I  beg  of  the  employers  and  the  Government  representatives  to 
take  cognizance  of  the  statements  which  I  make,  because  they  show 
that  the  workers,  after  having  discussed  the  matter,  are  now  pre¬ 
senting  you  with  a  text  by  means  of  which  conciliation  can  be 
effected,  and  on  which  international  agreement  may  be  established. 

Just  now,  while  I  was  listening  respectfully  but  sadly  to  the 
expose  made  by  the  honorable  Mr.  Parsons,  I  seemed  to  hear  again 
the  discussions  of  several  years  ago,  and  I  found  my  thoughts  run¬ 
ning  back  to  the  time  when  the  question  of  the  eight-hour  day  was 
first  brought  up  in  our  European  countries.  To-day  those  times  are 
gone.  We  have  reached  an  epoch  in  which  we  are  to  determine, 
with  a  clear  recognition  of  social  events,  the  new  formula  by  means 
of  which  the  world  of  to-morrow  can  be  freely  developed  for  the 
general  benefit  of  all  humanity. 

I  know  the  language  I  am  going  to  employ  may  seem  bold  to  you, 
but  there  are  moments  when  it  is  necessary  to  know  one’s  duty  and 
to  do  it,  in  order  to  avoid  great  responsibilities  in  the  future.  This 
is  one  of  those  moments. 

We  have  certainly  never  consciously  ignored  the  question  of 
production.  While  the  war  was  going  on,  during  that  time  of 
travail,  we,  the  workers’  organizations,  gave  our  attention  to  this 
grave  question  and  we  attempted  to  weigh  the  problems  which 
confronted  us  and  to  find  solutions  for  them.  We  did  this  work 
with  all  honesty,  with  all  fairness,  and  I  say  to  you  that  never,  at 
the  end  of  any  analysis  that  we  made,  did  the  longer  working 
day  appear  to  be  a  solution.  On  the  contrary,  each  time  that  we 
pushed  our  investigation  further,  each  time  that  we  examined  into 
the  details  of  an  analysis,  each  time  that  we  had  recourse  to  scien¬ 
tific  experience,  we  found  that  the  shorter  working  day  meant 
better  physical  and  physiological  development  for  the  worker,  in¬ 
creased  production,  and  improved  living  conditions.  It  is  from 
this  standpoint  that  we  to-day  approach  the  problem  which  is 
before  the  "conference. 

Assuredly,  as  1  have  just  said,  the  question  of  production  must 
not  be  forgotten.  It  is  undoubtedly,  as  Mr.  Barnes  has  said,  a  problem 
of  capital  importance  at  the  present  time.  We  do  not  disregard  the 
importance  of  the  question  of  production;  and  when  during  our 
travels  we  militant  workers  see  the  poor  organization  and  the  waste 
of  raw  materials  and  manufactured  products  which  it  entails,  when 
we  see  the  disorganization  of  the  labor  market  throughout  the  world, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  unemployment  in  certain  countries  in 
contrast  to  the  lack  of  labor,  then,  yes,  we  certainly  do  think  that 
something  should  be  done  to  increase  production.  But  we  also 
say  that  it  is  not  only  in  the  hours  of  labor  and  in  the  production  of 
the  individual  workman,  but  also  in  the  best  distribution  of  raw 
materials  and  the  best  utilization  of  economic  resources,  that  the 
solution  of  this  question  rests.  [Applause.] 

This  is  our  belief,  and  these  are  the  results  that  we  must  aspire 
to,  if  a  conference  such  as  this  is  going  to  take  a  stand  on  the  general 
grounds  of  the  question  and  examine  all  the  details  of  the  problems 
which  present  themselves.  I  have  no  intention  of  doing  this  today, 
and  I  do  beg  in  return  that  when  the  necessity  for  production  is 
mentioned  in  these  meetings,  there  shall  not  always  be  the  implica¬ 
tion  that  additional  efforts  must  be  required  of  the  human  machine, 
which  for  thousands  of  years  has  produced  all  it  was  capable  of 


60 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


without  receiving  the  slightest  compensation  in  material  and  moral 
welfare. 

I  should  like  to  remind  you  here  of  the  words  uttered  by  our 
honorable  president  in  his  opening  speech,  when  with  striking 
imagery  he  pictured  the  masses  at  the  bottom  of  the  valley,  the  sun 
trying  to  give  them  a  little  of  its  warmth,  and  their  yearning  to 
climb  up  into  the  full  sunlight.  Yes,  the  masses  have  this  longing; 
and  if  the  International  Labor  Conference  fails  to-day  to  begin  this 
relief  to  the  masses,  if  it  fails  to  make  a  start  towards  satisfying  their 
legitimate  aspirations,  there  may  come  about  a  world  discontent 
greater  than  is  expressed  in  words.  You  must  also  take  that  into 
account  too,  and  give  it  consideration  when  examining  the  clauses 
of  the  convention  now  before  us  for  examination. 

No,  Mr.  Parsons,  the  laboring  masses  can  no  longer  be  appeased 
with  vague  promises.  From  all  the  corners  of  the  world,  from  north 
to  south  and  from  east  to  west,  the  weary  voices  of  the  workers  are 
rising  to  the  skies  demanding  more  room  in  the  sunlight.  These 
voices  are  weary,  and  they  are  insistent.  If  you  do  not  know  enough 
to  seize  the  hour,  the  moment,  the  instant,  when  it  is  possible  to 
calm  these  hopes  by  giving  them  satisfaction  in  as  large  a  measure 
as  possible,  then  indeed,  in  the  figure  used  by  Mr.  Appleton,  the 
chariot  of  state  will  be  very  near  to  destruction,  the  ship  of  state 
will  be  close  to  shipwreck. 

It  is  for  you,  here,  in  the  fullness  of  your  responsibility,  to  say 
whether  you  will  loyally  attempt  the  effort  necessary  to  produce 
the  positive  result  for  which  we  are  all  seeking.  It  is  in  this  spirit 
that  we  have  drawn  up  our  motion  and  our  amendments,  it  is  for 
these  reasons  that  we  have  put  them  before  you,  and  it  is  likewise 
with  these  motives  that  we  ask  you  to  reflect  deeply  on  the  matter. 
We  say  to  you  that  in  this  world  there  are  not  only  arithmetical 
problems,  there  are  also  questions  of  idealism  and  morality  which 
inspire  the  masses  and  which  are  the  surest  guaranty  of  the  unin¬ 
terrupted  development  of  social  progress  for  the  benefit  of  all. 

The  workers’  delegations  maintain  that  the  workers  have  every 
right  to  a  full  life,  to  a  life  which  enables  the  body  to  be  kept  in  good 
health,  and  which  permits  the  development  of  intellectual  and  moral 
faculties. 

They  believe  that  a  decrease  in  working  hours  would  have  the 
following  effects:  The  uninterrupted  development  of  industrial 
equipment,  the  unlimited  diffusion  of  general  and  technical  educa¬ 
tion,  utilization  of  all  material  resources,  and  the  application  of  all 
the  discoveries  and  inventions  which  constitute  the  factors  essential 
to  more  extensive  production.  This  is  the  spirit  in  which  they  pro¬ 
pose  the  following  draft  amendment: 

Draft  of  a  convention  to  limit  the  hours  of  work  in  industrial  and  commercial 
undertakings  to  8  in  the  day  and  48  in  the  week  as  maxima  in  both  cases. 

The  workers’  delegations  believe  that  commerce  can  not  be 
omitted  from  the  international  convention,  and  therefore  have  added 
the  following: 

The  present  convention  applies  to  all  industrial  and  commercial  undertakings  or 
branches  thereof,  of  every  kind,  public  or  private,  other  than  those  in  which  only  the 
members  of  the  family  are  employed,  it  being  understood  that  home  work  is  not  in¬ 
cluded  in  this  exception. 

We  thought  that  if  it  was  the  duty  and  right  of  such  a  conference 
as  this  to  be  concerned  with  lessening  the  fatigue  of  adults,  a  still 
more  imperative  duty  lay  before  it  to  prevent  increased  exploitation 
of  children.  Now,  in  the  majority  of  cases  home  work  is  shameful 
exploitation,  against  which  vigorous  action  should  be  taken. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  following: 

(а)  Mines,  quarries,  and  works  where  materials  are  trcjpsformed. 

(б)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  repaired,  ornamented, 
finished,  or  adapted  for  sale  or  in  which  raw  materials  are  transformed,  including  the 
generation  and  the  transformation  of  electricity,  ship  construction,  laundry  work. 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  or  alteration  and  demolition 
of  buildings,  railways,  tramways,  harbors,  docks,  piers,  canals,  inland  navigation, 
roads,  tunnels,  bridges  viaducts  sewers,  drains,  wells,  telephonic  or  telegraphic  in¬ 
stallations,  olectrical  undertakings,  gas  works,  waterworks,  or  other  works  of  con¬ 


struction.  and  the  preparation  for  and  the  laying  of  foundations  of  any  such  works  or 
buildings. 

(d)  The  transport  ol  passengers  or  goods  by  sea,  by  road,  by  canal,  or  by  rail,  in¬ 
cluding  the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  warehouses. 

Art.  2.  The  working  hours  of  employed  persons  shall  not  exceed  8  hours  per  day 
and  48  hours  per  week,  except  only  in  cases  which  can  be  justified  by  accidents,  such 
as  fire,  flood,  or  unforeseen  catastrophes. 

The  provisions  of  this  convention,  ho wever,  shall  not  apply  to  persons  holding  posi- 
tions  of  supervision  or  management  or  employed  in  a  confidential  capacity.  When 
work  is  carried  on  in  three  shifts,  as  in  blast  furnaces.it  shall  be  permissible  to  employ 
persons  in  excess  of  48  hours  in  any  week  if  the  average  number  of  working  hours  over 
a  period  of  three  weeks-does  not  exceed  48. 

We  thought  that  calculation  for  work  in  blast  furnaces  should  cover 
a  period  of  three  weeks  rather  than  a  month,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the 
lapse  of  time  during  which  the  three  shifts  relieve  each  other.  • 

Art.  3.  The  limit  of  8  hours  in  the  day  and  48  hours  in  the  week  may  be  exceeded, 
with  the  privilege  of  a  compensating  rest  in  case  of  accident,  breakdown  of  machinery 
or  plant,  hut  only  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  avoid  serious  interference  with  the 
ordinary  working  of  the  undertaking. 

Art.  4.  In  industries  which,  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  industry, require  proc¬ 
esses  to  be  carried  on  continuously  by  a  succession  of  shifts  the  limitation  of  the  hours 
of  work  shall  not  affect  any  holidays  which  may  be  assured  for  the  workers  in  such 
Industries  by  law,  including  the  weekly  rest  to  which  all  workers  are  entitled. 

We  wanted  the  article  ,to  lay  down  the  principle  that  all  workers 
are  entitled  to  a  weekly  rest;  and  when  we  tvere  told  that  this  was 
impossible  in  blast  furnaces,  we  upheld  the  need  of  an  additional 
seventh  worker  for  every  six  in  order  to  obtain  rest  by  alternation. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  also  wanted  the  workers,  regardless  of  the 
industry  in  which  they  are  employed,  to  receive  the  benefit  of  all 
holidays  and  rest  granted  other  workers. 

Art.  5.  The  limit  of  8  hours  in  the  day  and  48  hours  in  the  week  may  be  extended 
to  not  exceeding  54  hours  in  the  week  for  the  classes  of  workers  included  in  schedule  B, 
paragraph  1. 

Werealizedthatwewouldnotbeableto  compel  firemen,  engineers, 
and  certain  classes  of  workers  who  prepare  the  work  in  certain 
establishments  to  leave  at  closing  time,  nor  could  we  compel  them 
not  to  arrive  before  the  opening  time  of  such  establishments.  But 
we  thought  that  one  hour  per  day  was,  speaking  broadly,  sufficient 
for  such  work.  We  believe,  not  from  reasoning,  but  from  actual 
experience,  because  we  know — a  point  which  no  one  will  contest — 
that  in  many  factories  15  or  20  minutes  are  sufficient  for  lighting 
or  extinguishing  fires.  Consequently,  by  leaving  a  margin  of  six 
hours  per  week,  i.  e.,  a  nine-hour  day,  we  shall  be  meeting  our  obli¬ 
gations  with  regard  to  industrial  needs. 

Art.  G.  In  seasonal  industries  overtime  may  be  worked  for  not  more  than  70  hours 
a  year,  subject  to  the  condition  that  a  worker  when  employed  overtime  in  excess  of 
the  daily  8  hours  shall  receive  a  rate  of  pay  which  shall  be  higher  by  at  least  50  per 
cent. 

On  this  point  it  seemed  to  us  necessary  not  to  accept  the  theory 
supported  in  the  draft  of  the  organizing  committee  and  still  more  nec¬ 
essary  to  reject  the  theory  supported  by  the  employers,  as  a  simple 
superficial  glance  will  enable  anyone  to  see  that  300  hours  of  over¬ 
time  would  be  equivalent  to  saying: 

Article  1.  We  establish  an  eight-hour  day. 

Article  2.  We  establish  a  nine-hour  day. 

We  can  not  admit  exceptions  of  such  importance.  We  do  want 
to  -take  into  consideration  industrial  difficulties  and  requirements, 
but  we  believe  that  these  difficulties  and  requirements  should  not 
be  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  interests  of  the  workers. 

We  have  passed  over  article  7  because  we  want  to  ask  for  supple¬ 
mentary  explanations  of  the  text  of  it.  We  do  not  yet  under¬ 
stand  the  significance  of  it;  but  when  the  necessary  explanations 
are  made  we  shall  be  prepared  to  take  our  stand  on  the  matter. 

Art.  8.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this  convention, 
every  employer  shall  be  required: 

(a)  To  make  known  by  means  of  a  notice  posted  in  his  works  or  other  suitable 
place,  or  by  such  other  method  as  may  be  approved  by  the  Government,  the  hours  at 
which  work  begins  and  ends;  or,  where  work  is  carried  on  by  shifts,  the  times  at  which 
the  employment  of  each  shift  begins  and  ends.  The  time  should  be  so  fixed  as  not 
to  exceed  the  limits  provided  for  under  this  convention,  and  when  notified  shall  not 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


61 


be  changed  except  by  agreement  between  the  employers’  and  workers’  organizations 
and  after  having  been  approved  by  the  Government. 

(6)  To  notify  in  the  same  way  such  rest  or  meal  times  observed  during  the  period 
of  work  as  are  not  reckoned  as  a  part  of  the  working  hours. 

(c)  To  keep  a  record  in  a  form  approved  by  the  International  Labor  Office  of 
all  additional  hours  worked  in  pursuance  of  articles  3  and  6  of  this  convention.  It 
shall  be  made  an  offense  against  the  law  to  employ  any  person  outside  the  times 
fixed  in  pursuance  of  paragraph  (a)  or  during  the  times  fixed  in  paragraph  (b). 

In  this  article  we  thought  to  introduce  the  principle  that  the  blank 
forms  for  the  recording  and  reporting  of  the  hours  of  work  shall  be 
international,  in  order  to  make  possible,  to  expedite,  and  to  render 
effective  investigations  necessary  for  controlling  the  application  of  the 
conventions.  Our  idea  is  not  to  infringe  on  the  national  legislation 
of  any  country;  at  the  present  time  we  are  not  drawing  up  national 
legislation,  we  are  drawing  up  an  international  convention,  and  con¬ 
sequently  we  should  see  to  it  that  our  methods  of  control  are  inter¬ 
national  methods  and  are  within  the  range  of  all  the  members  of 
the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Art.  9.  In  those  countries  in  which  climatic  conditions  render  the  industrial  effi¬ 
ciency  of  the  workers  substantially  different,  the  following  modifications  of  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  this  convention  are  permitted:  *  *  * 

It  was  our  opinion  that  a  reservation  should  be  made  to  this  ar¬ 
ticle  by  omitting  that  part  which  says  ‘  ‘the  imperfect  development 
of  industrial  organization.” 

We  consider  this  a  vague  and  indefinite  phrase  on  which  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  base  any  serious  judgment.  Even  if  we  are  willing  to 
admit  that  there  are  climatic  conditions  which  influence  the  work¬ 
ers’  efficiency  we  do  not  wish  to  infer  that  certain  countries,  or  cer¬ 
tain  regions,  because  they  are  not  willing  to  improve  the  mechanical 
end  of  their  industries,  should  be  authorized  to  claim  exemption 
from  application  of  the  international  labor  convention. 

Similarly,  we  set  aside  article  10  because  this  article  speaks  of  the 
possibility  of  suspension  of  the  convention  by  the  Government  in 
case  of  war  and  also  in  case  of  events  which  threaten  national  security. 

We  may  possibly  appear  somewhat  too  optimistic,  slightly  too 
credulous,  in  the  eyes  of  the  International  Labor  Conference,  but  it 
appears  to  us  that  when  we  are  called  upon  to  perform  an  interna¬ 
tional  task  which  is  at  bottom  the  first  stone  in  the  League  of  Nations, 
which  is  the  first  action  of  the  League  of  Nations,  the  purpose  of 
which  is  to  remove  the  possibility  of  future  war,  it  is  impossible  to 
make  provision  for  the  occasion  when  the  Governments  making  part 
of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  suspend  international  conventions  in 
the  event  of  war;  first,  I  repeat,  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  very 
spirit  and  aim  of  the  League  of  Nations,  but  also  because  it  is  pro¬ 
foundly  immoral. 

By  accepting  this  condition  you  declare  in  advance  that  countries 
in  a  state  of  war,  whether  they  are  the  aggressors  or  the  attacked, 
shall  be  entitled  by  your  convention  to  suspend  the  application  of 
laws  limiting  the  duration  of  labor.  That,  I  repeat,  is  profoundly 
immoral  and  contrary  to  everything  that  has  been  brought  to  light 
during  the  war  we  have  just  won. 

Your  article  contains  the  following,  moreover:  ‘  ‘in  case  of  events 
threatening  the  national  security.” 

We  do  not  quite  understand  what  this  means,  or  rather  we  have 
too  much  of  a  presentiment,  and  we  do  not  want  to  make  it  possible 
a  few  months  hence  to  affect  the  right  of  organization  which  you  have 
inscribed  at  the  very  head  of  the  international  labor  charter. 

It  is  for  these  reasons  that  we  have  set  aside  article  10  and  that  we 
request  the  necessary  supplementary  explanations. 

Art.  11.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  enter  into  force  not  later  than 
July  1, 1920. 

We  have  added  supplementary  articles  in  order  to  complete  our 
amendments. 

Art  1.  In  adopting  the  above  text  the  International  Labor  Conference  at 
Washington  is  of  the  opinion  that  war-time  laws  restricting  rights  of  labor  should  be 
repealed  in  all  countries,  so  as  to  eliminate  any  obstacle  to  the  application  of  the 
clauses  of  this  convention. 


We  demand  in  this  additional  article  that  laws  restricting  the 
rights  of  labor  which  may  have  been  of  use  during  the  war,  be  re¬ 
pealed  now  that  the  war  is  over  and  that  nations  are  living  under 
a  regime  of  peace. 

Art.  2.  (a)  In  no  case  shall  this  convention  affect  the  advances  already  made  by 
workers  in  certain  countries,  either  by  means  of  legislation  or  by  means  of  agreements 
between  trades-unions:  and  it  shall  not  in  any  way  delay  application  of  the  8-hour 
day  and  the  48-hour  week  in  countries  where  negotiations  have  already  been  entered 
upon  between  employers,  workers,  and  Government  representatives. 

(b)  The  fact  that  this  convention  does  not  examine  the  details  and  methods  of 
application  of  the  8-hour  day  in  the  merchant  marine  and  contains  no  clause  relative 
to  agricultural  labor  in  no  way  implies  that' any  exception  is  intended.  The  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office  is  charged  to  convene  a  special  meeting  of  each  of  these  trades 
with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

(c)  The  workers’  delegates  demand  that  there  be  organized  in  each  country  a 
department  of  labor  inspection,  staffed  by  Government  officials  and  delegates  ap¬ 
pointed  by  workers’  organizations,  which  department,  among  otherthings,  shall  be 
charged  with  the  investigation  of  the  application  of  international  conventions,  and 
shall  make  an  annual  report  to  the  International  Labor  Office. 

(d)  The  workers’  delegates  recommend  that  all  countries  shall  introduce  a  Satur¬ 
day  afternoon  holiday  and  limit  the  working  week  to  44  hours. 

That  is  the  report  proposed  by  the  workers’  delegates  as  an  amend¬ 
ment  to  the  draft  convention  of  the  organizing  committee  of  the 
International  Labor  Conference. 

As  an  amendment  to  the  draft  convention  of  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  at  Washington,  I  repeat, 
this  report,  the  terms  of  which  may  appear  bold  to  certain  minds,  is 
less  advanced  than  the  legislation  already  enacted  in  some  countries;  it 
does  not  fulfill  all  the  aspirations  and  claims  of  the  workers;  but  it  is 
a  mean  between  the  claims  which  we  believe  should  be  advanced. 
And  in  this  light  it  becomes  binding  on  all,  if  we  wish  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference  at  Washington  to  be  what  we,  the  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  masses  of  workers  ardently  desire  it  to  be,  the  first 
landmark  on  the  road  of  the  League  of  Nations  for  the  best  possible 
future  for  humanity. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  state  that  we  have  a  visit  from  the 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  who  is  at  the  moment  at  the 
door.  [Applause.] 

Ladies  and  gentlemen  of  the  conference,  the  Vice  President  of  the 
United  States.  [Applause.] 

Hon.  THOMAS  R.  MARSHALL  (Vice  President  of  the  United 
States).  Ladies  and  gentlemen  of  this  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference,  you  are  here  in  the  Capital  City  of  the  United  States  at  the 
invitation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  in  accordance 
with  a  joint  resolution  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  I  assume 
that  the  Secretary  of  Labor  has  heretofore  welcomed  you.  It  has 
been  a  source  of  great  regret  upon  my  part  that  the  President  of  our 
Republic  has  been  so  stricken  in  health  that  he  has  been  unable  to 
face  you,  greet  you,  welcome  you,  and  offer  suggestions  to  you. 

I  have  not  hitherto  come  to  you  for  the  very  simple  reason  that 
those  of  you  who  know  anything  about  the  form  of  government  that 
we  have  in  this  country  understand,  without  being  told,  that  the 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States  is  a  man  without  power,  author¬ 
ity,  or  influence.  [Laughter.] 

He  occupies  the  most  unique  position  of  any  public  official  on 
the  face  of  the  globe.  Elsewhere,  one  who  occupies  my  place 
might  be  denominated  the  heir  apparent,  but  here  I  am  not  apparent 
at  all.  [Laughter.]  Therefore  I  neither  expect  nor  intend  that  you 
shall  pay  any  attention  to  what  I  may  say,  or  have  your  delibera¬ 
tions  governed  in  any  particular  by  any  little  views  that  I  may 
express.  I  speak  for  nobody  except  myself.  And  I  do  not  expect 
to  run  either  the  American  Government  or  the  world.  When  I 
was  a  small  boy  I  saw  a  geography  that  had  on  the  back  of  it  a 
picture  of  Atlas  carrying  the  world  on  his  shoulder.  I  sawr  the 
pained  and  stricken  expression  on  his  face,  and  I  resolved  that  I 
Would  never  undertake  to  carry  the  world  on  my  shoulders,  and  I 
have  kept  that  resolution  sedulously.  [Laughter.]  I  never 
attempted  to  carry  any  portion  of  it  on  my  shoulders  until  several 
years  ago,  when  I  attempted  to  carry  that  part  of  it  called  the 


62 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


State  of  Indiana  on  my  shoulders,  and  failed  in  that  effort.  May 
I,  however,  be  permitted  to  say  just  this  to  you,  as  the  individual 
opinion  of  an  individual  man  who,  if  he  knows  himself,  entertains 
no  enmity  or  ill-will  against  a  single  soul  on  earth. 

I  assume  you  are  looking  forward  to  legislation,  legislation  in  the 
interests  of  what  you  call  the  laboring  classes  of  the  world,  and  very 
frankly,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  don’t  like  the  definition.  I  object 
to  classes  in  a  world  where  God  made  men.  [Applause.] 

And  I  am  not  here  to  even  suggest  anything  along  the  line  of 
legislation,  but  I  am  here  to  say  to  you  that  I  have  found  out  that 
there  are  two  kinds  of  legislation  in  this  dreary  old  world.  One  is 
legislation  that  attempts  to  have  the  world  lift  itself  up  by  its  boot 
straps.  In  other  words,  legislation  that  does  not  have  back  of  it 
the  concrete  public  opinion  of  the  people  for  whom  it  is  made, 
and  up  to  this  good  hour  about  all  I  have  ever  seen  come  from  such 
legislation  as  that  is  trouble  and  turmoil  in  the  community  and 
more  violations  of  the  law  than  respect  for  it.  Upon  the  other 
hand,  there  is  a  legislation  which  seeks  to  crystallize  into  the  law 
of  the  land  the  public  opinion  of  the  country,  and  when  the  public 
opinion  of  people  is  behind  the  legislation  you  may  rest  assured 
that  the  legislation  is  going  to  be  successful. 

The  difficulty  with  most  people  who  desire  good  things  is  that  they 
want  all  of  them  at  once,  when,  if  they  will  consider  the  history  of 
human  kind,  they  will  observe  that  the  growth  of  right  things  among 
mankind  is  the  slowest  thing  in  all  nature  of  which  we  have  any 
account.  Theodore  Parker  at  one  time,  after  an  attempt  to  clean  up 
the  city  of  Boston,  and  discovering  it  a  failure,  uttered  this  great 
truth:  That  there  was  just  one  difference  between  Theodore  Parker 
and  God,  and  that  was  that  God  could  wait. 

I  don’t  know  enough  about  your  problems  to  discuss  them  with 
you.  That  is  a  very  frank  statement.  I  have  troubles  of  my  own, 
ladies  and  gentlemen.  I  am  presiding  over  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  [laughter  and  applause],  where  there  is  at  the  present  time  a 
distinct  effort  to  write  96  separate  treaties  with  the  Imperial  German 
Government.  But  I  do  have  some  idea,  not  as  politician  nor  as  law¬ 
maker — but  as  a  man  who  thinks  he  ioves  his  fellow  man — I  do  have 
some  idea  as  to  how  the  many  wrongs  which  exist  in  the  relations 
of  labor  and  capital  are  to  be  solved.  Now,  I  may  be  anathema 
maranatha  to  you,  and  you  may  request  me  to  retire  at  once,  if  you 
want:  but  I  can  not  help  saying  this  to  you:  For  God’s  sake  get  at 
the  solution  of  these  problems  in  a  spirit  of  amity  and  concord  and 
friendship  and  common  human  sympathy.  [Applause.] 

Do  not  think  you  know  it  all.  There  is  only  one  man  on  earth 
that  I  am  afraid  of  and  that  is  the  cocksure  man,  the  man  who  knows 
it  all  and  understands  it  all  and  proposes  to  settle  it  all  according  to 
his  way.  That  is  why  I  am  not  a  pacifist.  You  can  not  get  along 
with  a  pacifist  without  having  a  fight  with  him,  and  I  do  not  want 
to  fight  with  anyone.  [Laughter.]  Let  me  give  you  an  illustration 
of  what  I  mean:  We  had  out  in  the  State  of  Indiana  a  German  who 
was  elected  justice  of  the  peace  and  who  tried  his  first  case.  It  was 
tried  in  the  court  and  at  the  close  of  it  the  attorney  for  the  plaintiff 
rose  and  argued  the  case.  As  he  sat  down  the  attorney  for  the  de¬ 
fendant  got  up  and  said,  “May  it  please  the  court.”  Whereupon  the 
German  justice  said,  “You  sit  down.  He  has  got  it.” 

“But,”  said  the  attorney,  “the  law  of  this  State  authorizes  me  to 
argue  my  client’s  case,  and  I  demand  that  right.”  “Well,”  said 
the  old  German  justice,  “go  ahead,  but  it  won’t  do  you  any  good,  I 
tell  you;  he  has  got  it  now.” 

The  defendant’s  counsel  made  his  argument,  and  as  he  sat  down  a 
wave  of  consternation  and  bewilderment  swept  over  the  German 
justice’s  face,  and  he  said:  “Well,  now,  don’t  that  beat  the  devil; 
he’s  got  it  now.” 

It  is  just  a  homely  story  from  a  homely  part  of  the  Republic;  but, 
oh,  gentlemen,  don’t  meet  these  problems  in  an  antagonistic  spirit. 
Meet  the  men  upon  the  other  side  upon  the  level .  Be  patient.  Put 
yourselves  in  their  places;  and,  as  I  beg  that  of  you,  I  would  beg  it  also 
of  every  employer  of  labor  the  world  around — put  himself  in  the 
place  of  the  man  who  has  to  stand  at  the  machine  or  go  down  in  the 
mine. 


In  other  words,  I  am  not  here  presenting  or  advocating  interfering 
with  your  deliberations,  trying  to  say  what  you  shall  or  what  you  shall 
not  do.  But  take  it  from  a  man  who  has  sounded  most  of  the  shoals 
and  depths  of  human  passion,  from  a  man  who  has  never  allied  with 
any  organization  that  sought  any  governmental  influence  or  govern¬ 
mental  power  at  all,  from  a  man  who  has  wanted  no  advantage  and 
no  benefit  except  the  advantage  and  benefit  that  came  to  him  as  an 
American  citizen;  take  it  from  me  that  the  surest  way  for  the  solu¬ 
tion  of  these  problems  which  confront  you  is  not  from  the  bitter 
standpoint  of  your  own  wrongs  and  grievances,  but  from  the  common 
standpoint  of  the  Nazarene,  that  “whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.”  [Applause.] 

I  am  not  here  even  to  interfere  with  your  deliberations.  I  am 
one  of  those  who  believe  in  free  and  frank  discussion.  I  hope 
nobody  is  going  to  get  mad  at  what  they  may  determine  ill-tempered 
and  radical  and  foolish  statements.  I  have  been  married  a  great 
many  years,  and  I  know  it  does  not  pay  to  get  mad  at  radical,  foolish, 
and  ill-tempered  statements.  [Laughter.]  After  they  have  been 
made  there  is  always  a  golden  mean  that  works  for  peace  and 
quietude  in  the  family  that  I  trust  may  work  for  peace  and  quietude 
in  the  Republic,  and  I  hope  may  bind  the  nations  of  the  world 
together  in  a  sincere  desire  for  the  common  prosperity  of  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  and  for  a  universal  peace  never  to  be  broken. 

So,  gentlemen,  never  forget  that  the  same  contending  forces  which 
contend  in  physical  nature  contend  also  in  the  judgment  and  con¬ 
science  and  opinions  of  mankind.  This  weary  old  world  of  ours, 
storm  tossed,  war  swept,  keeps  on  its  accustomed  course  around  the 
center  of  our  solar  system,  because  all  the  while  there  are  playing 
upon  it  two  great  forces  of  nature,  the  centripetal  force  that  would 
draw  it  into  the  sun  and  burn  it  up,  and  the  centrifugal  force  that 
would  throw  it  out  of  its  orbit,  whirling  it  to  unknown  spaces.  The 
two  pulling  against  each  other  keep  us  in  peace  and  safety.  So, 
let  the  radical  here  voice  his  views  and  let  the  conservative  here 
speak  freely,  and  between  the  two  forces  contending  with  each 
other,  may  the  God  of  nations,  who  has  gotten  us  out  of  this  war, 
keep  us  safely  in  the  orbit  of  peace  and  quietude  and  good  order  in 
our  industrial  relations.  I  thank  you.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barnes,  of  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  ladies,  and 
gentlemen,  may  I  venture  to  ask  my  fellow  delegates  and  advisers 
to  join  with  me  in  according  a  very  hearty  vote  of  thanks  to 
the  Vice  President  for  his  presence  here  to-day,  and  for  the  very 
excellent  and  enthusing  address  that  he  delivered  to  us?  Sir,  I 
think  it  is  fitting  that  this  conference  should  have  been  visited  by 
the  Vice  President  of  the  United  States.  I  know  we  all  regret  the 
cause  of  the  absence  of  the  President  himself.  We  know  that  he  is 
lying  upon  a  bed  of  sickness,  that  the  magnificent  efforts  that  he  has 
made  on  behalf  of  the  democracies  of  the  world  have  laid  him  low, 
and  we  all  wish  that  he  may  be  restored  to  health  as  speedily  as  may 
be.  [Applause.]  But  in  the  absence  of  the  President  we  welcome 
here  to-day  Vice  President  Marshall.  It  is  fit  and  proper,  I  say,  that 
this  conference  should  have  been  visited  by  the  representative  of  the 
United  States  Executive,  because  I  think  I  can  say  without  egotism 
that  this  conference  is,  after  all,  an  epoch-making  one  and  may  start 
a  new  era  in  industrial  relations.  The  Vice  President  has  said  that 
we  are  here  for  the  benefit  of  what  he  called  the  laboring  classes  of 
the  world.  In  a  sense,  Mr.  President,  that  is  quite  true,  but  it  carries 
with  it  a  great  deal  more  than  the  bare  statement  would  seem  to 
imply.  I  venture  to  say  that  those  who  are  working  for  the  benefit  of 
the  laboring  classes  of  the  world  are  at  the  same  time  working  for  the 
benefit  of  every  class  in  every  community  and  for  the  continued 
peace  and  progress  of  the  world. 

Cast  one’s  eye  where  one  will,  and  what  do  you  find?  You 
find  that  where  them  is  poverty,  where  there  is  destitution,  there 
also  you  find  low  moral  standards  and  a  general  stagnation  in  that 
community.  Whereas,  cast  your  mind  to  those  communities  that 
have  a  high  standard  of  comfort  and  a  high  standard  of  education, 
and  there  also  you  will  find  a  higher  standard  of  morality,  a  greater 
desire  to  do  the  right  thing,  and  a  firmer  basis  of  law  and  order 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


63 


and  progress.  And,  therefore,  I  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  the  Vice 
President  said  that  we  were  working  for  the  uplifting  of  the  laboring 
classes,  whether  he  meant  it  or  not,  I  take  it  that  that  statement 
means  in  its  fullest  implication  that  we  are  working  for  the  uplifting 
and  the  benefit  of  all  classes.  That  being  so,  having  regard  to 
the  fact  that  this  conference  for  the  first  time  brings  all  classes 
together  in  a  spirit  of  cooperation  and  good  will,  that  being  so,  it 
is  right  and  fitting  the  Vice  President  should  have  come  here.  We 
are  extremely  glad  that  he  has  come  here.  We  feel  honored  by 
his  presence.  We  thank  him  heartily  for  his  address.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  many  as  favor  the  motion  of  the  Right 
Hon.  Mr.  Barnes  will  signify  the  same  by  raising  the  right  hand. 

[Show  ol  hands.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

Agreed  to  unanimously,  Mr.  Vice  President  [addressing  Vice 
President  Marshall],  [Applause.] 

Without  objection  the  conference  will  recess  for  20  minutes  or 
half  an  hour  to  shake  hands  with  the  Vice  President,  who  will 
meet  you  at  this  side  of  the  room.  Hearing  no  objection,  it  is  so 
ordered. 

[Recess.] 

I  desire  to  announce  that  I  have  been  advised  that  instead  of  the 
Mayflower  leaving  at  2  o’clock  to-morrow  afternoon  it  will  leave  at 
1  o’clock,  and  I  am  also  advised  that  luncheon  will  be  served  on 
the  vessel.  [Applause.] 

In  accordance  with  the  announcement  of  the  interpreter  that  the 
motion  that  was  to  be  read  and  was  read  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  would 
also  be  read  by  Mr.  Shaw  at  the  conclusion  of  his  remarks,  and  that 
therefore  that  portion  of  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  remarks  need  not  be  trans¬ 
lated,  we  will  now  proceed  with  the  recognition  of  Mr.  Shaw  with¬ 
out  further  translation  of  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  remarks. 

Mr.  Shaw  is  recognized. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  in  view  of  the  late¬ 
ness  of  the  hour  and  the  fact  that  I  and,  I  dare  say,  most  of  the 
delegates  are  extremely  anxious  to  get  to  the  detailed  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  draft  convention,  I  hope  that  I  shall  not  spend  too  much 
time  in  a  general  introduction  to  the  amendments  made  by  the 
labor  section  to  the  draft  convention  itself 

We  face  the  business  of  this  conference  with  a  view  that  is  col¬ 
ored  by  ideals  that  all  of  us  hold.  The  war  took  its  terrible  toll  of 
the  sons  of  all  of  us,  of  whatever  class.  But  out  of  the  war  certain 
great  features  emerged  which  have  led  to  this  conference  in  Wash¬ 
ington,  and  our  sincere  hope  is  that  the  suffering  and  the  agonies 
of  the  past  may,  after  all,  resolve  themselves  into  brighter  and  bet¬ 
ter  conditions  for  the  future  of  all  humanity. 

Before  the  war,  even  in  the  best-organized  countries  in  the  world, 
the  position  of  too  many  of  the  workers  was  a  position  of  under¬ 
feeding,  overworking,  undereducation,  dirt,  and  misery.  It  is  to 
be  hoped  that  out  of  all  the  suffering  will  emerge  a  condition  not 
of  overwork,  but  sufficient  work,  wages  that  will  give  comfort,  will 
give  cleanliness,  will  give  security,  will  give  education,  which  will 
allow  human  beings  of  all  classes  to  develop  everything  that  is  best 
and  brightest  in  their  nature.  Those  are  our  ideals,  and  they  are 
bound  to  color  every  word  we  say,  every  action  we  take,  in  this 
gathering.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  elaborate  our  ideals  My 
desire  is  to  get  at  once  to  the  detailed  consideration  of  our  business. 
With  your  permission  I  will  now  turn  to  what  the  labor  delegations 
of  the  whole  of  the  countries,  so  far  as  1  know,  are  prepared  to  sub¬ 
mit  to  this  conference  as  amendments  to  the  draft  convention  drawn 
up  and  circulated  in  this  book. 

Our  amendments  begin  with  the  heading  itself  of  the  draft  con¬ 
vention,  and  we  head  the  convention  that  we  suggest  proposals  of 
workers’  delegates  concerning  an  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week. 
The  convention  itself  is  headed  48-hour  week  only.  That  is  the 
first  essential  difference  between  our  suggestions  and  the  draft  con¬ 
vention.  We  go  on  then  to  say  that  the  workers’  delegates  declare 
that  the  workers  have  a  right  to  a  full  life  and  to  a  mode  of  life  which 
will  permit  tin  maintenance  of  the  body  in  a  healthy  condition 


and  the  development  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  faculties.  They 
consider  that  the  result  of  shortening  the  hours  of  work  would  be 
the  uninterrupted  improvement  of  industrial  equipment,  the  un¬ 
limited  diffusion  of  general  and  technical  construction,  the  full 
employment  of  all  talent,  and  the  utilization  of  all  material  re¬ 
sources.  And  here  may  I  say  that  every  experience  in  every  indus¬ 
trial  country  in  the  world  goes  to  prove  that  our  deductions  are 
correct,  because  where  labor  has  been  reduced  to  the  minimum  in 
hours,  so  labor  has  been  raised  to  the  maximum  of  efficiency.  And 
only  in  those  countries  where  hours  are  longest  do  we  find  the  ex¬ 
tremes  of  misery,  and  in  those  countries  where  hours  are  shortest 
do  we  find  the  maximum  of  comfort  for  the  whole  of  the  people. 

We  say  that  the  general  application  of  all  inventions  and  dis¬ 
coveries  which  constitute  the  essential  factors  of  a  larger  production 
will  result  from  the  shortening  of  hours.  In  this  spirit  they  propose — 
“they”  means  the  workers’  delegations — the  following  amended 
draft: 

Draft  of  a  convention  to  limit  the  maximum  hours  of  work  in  industrial  and  com¬ 
mercial  undertakings  to  8  per  day  and  48  per  week,  as  maxima  in  both  cases. 

The  difference  there  is  that  we  include  commercial  works,  and 
we  insist  on  the  8-hour  day  as  a  maximum  day  instead  of  a  48-hour 
week  only,  as  provided  by  the  convention. 

We  suggest  that  article  1  should  read: 

The  present  convention  applies  to  all  industrial  and  commercial  undertakings  or 
branches  thereof,  of  every  kind,  public  or  private,  other  than  those  in  which  only  the 
members  of  the  family  are  employed,  it  being  understood  that  home  work  is  not 
included  in  this  exception. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  following: 

(а)  Mines,  quarries,  and  works  where  materials  are  transformed. 

(б)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  repaired,  ornamented, 
finished,  or  adapted  for  sale  or  in  which  raw  materials  are  transformed,  including 
t  he  generation  and  the  transformation  of  electricity,  ship  construction,  laundry  work. 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  or  alteration  and  demoli¬ 
tion  of  buildings,  railways,  tramways,  harbors,  docks,  piers,  canals,  inland  naviga¬ 
tion,  roads,  tunnels,  bridges,  viaducts,  sewers,  drains,  wells,  telephonic  or  telegraphic 
installations,  electrical  undertakings,  gas  works,  waterworks,  or  other  works  of  con¬ 
struction  and  the  preparation  for  and  the  laying  of  foundations  of  any  such  works 
or  buildings. 

( d )  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  sea,  by  road,  by  canal,  or  by  rail, 
including  the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  warehouses. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  suggest  a  translation,  Mr.  Shaw? 

Mr.  SHAW.  I  was  going  to  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
as  M.  Jouhaux  has  read  all  this  and  as  I  am  reading  it  in  English, 
that  my  remarks  need  not  be  translated  at  all;  that  they  will  appear 
in  the  report;  and  that  M.  Jouhaux’s  explanatory  remarks  will  also 
appear  in  the  report  and  the  delegates  might  be  satisfied  and  we 
might  get  to  actual  work  at  our  next  sitting. 

Art.  2.  The  working  hours  of  employed  persons  shall  not  exceed  8  hours  per  day 
and  48  hours  per  week,  except  only  in  cases  which  can  be  justified  by  accidents, 
such  as  fire,  flood,  or  unforeseen  catastrophes. 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  not  apply  to  persons  holding  positions 
of  supervision  or  management  or  employed  in  a  confidential  capacity.  When 
persons  are  employed  in  three  shifts,  as  in  blast  furnaces,  it  shall  be  permissible  to 
employ  persons  in  excess  of  48  hours  in  any  week  if  the  average  number  of  working 
hours  over  a  period  of  three  weeks  does  not  exceed  48. 

Art.  3.  The  limit  of  8  hours  in  the  day  and  48  hours  in  the  week  may  be  e  xceeded, 
with  the  privilege  of  a  compensating  rest,  in  case  of  accident ,  breakdown  of  machinery 
or  plant,  but  only  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  avoid  serious  interference  with  the 
ordinary  working  of  the  undertaking. 

Art.  4.  In  industries  which  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  industry  require 
processes  to  be  carried  on  continuously  by  a  succession  of  shifts  the  limitation  of  the 
hours  of  work  shall  not  affect  any  holidays  w’hich  may  be  assured  for  the  workers 
in  such  industries  by  law,  including  the  weekly  rest  to  which  all  workers  are  entitled. 

Art.  5.  The  limit  of  8  hours  in  the  day  and  48  hours  in  the  week  may  be  extended 
to  not  exceeding  54  hours  in  the  week  for  the  classes  of  workers  included  in  schedule 
B,  paragraph  I. 

The  rest  of  schedule  B  we  ask  to  be  deleted  as  we  intend  the 
whole  of  schedule  A  to  be  deleted. 

Art.  6.  In  seasonal  industries  overtime  may  be  worked  for  not  more  than  70 
hours  a  year,  subject  to  the  condition  that  a  worker  when  employed  overtime  in 
excess  of  the  daily  8  hour's  shall  receive  a  rate  of  pay  which  shall  be  higher  by  at  least 
50  per  cent. 


64 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


That  condition  is  inserted  in  order  to  make,  so  far  as  possible, 
•overtime  work  impossible. 

Article  7  we  desire  to  leave  out  altogether  until  we  have  had 
some  explanation  as  to  what  it  exactly  means.  We  are  in  doubt  as 
to  its  meaning,  and  we  prefer  to  have  an  explanation  of  it  before 
we  come  to  any  decision  on  the  matter. 

Akt.  8.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this  convention, 
every  employer  should  be  required: 

(o)  To  notify,  by  means  of  a  notice  posted  in  the  works  or  other  suitable  place, 
or  by  such  other  method  as  may  be  approved  by  the  Government,  the  hours  at 
which  work  begins  and  ends;  or,  where  work  is  carried  on  by  shifts,  the  times  at 
which  the  employment  of  each  shift  begins  and  ends.  The  time  should  be  so  fixed 
as  not  to  exceed  the  limits  provided  for  under  this  convention,  and  when  notified 
shall  not  be  changed  except  by  agreement  between  the  employers’  and  workers' 
•organizations  and  after  having  been  approved  by  the  Government. 

The  idea  underlying  that  provision  is  to  prevent  any  body  of 
employers  and  employed  breaking  through  the  national  agreement 
by  agreements  between  themselves. 

(6)  To  notify  in  the  same  way  such  rest  or  meal  times  observed  during  the  period 
of  work  as  are  not  reckoned  as  a  part  of  the  working  hours. 

(c)  To  keep  a  record  in  a  form  approved  by  the  International  Labor  Office  of  all 
additional  hours  worked  in  pursuance  of  articles  3  and  6  of  this  convention.  It  shall 
be  made  an  offense  against  the  law  to  employ  any  person  outside  the  times  fixed 
in  pursuance  of  paragraph  (a)  or  during  the  times  fixed  in  paragraph  (b). 

Art.  9.  In  those  countries  in  which  climatic  conditions  render  the  industrial  effi¬ 
ciency  of  the  workers  substantially  different,  the  following  modifications  of  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  this  convention  are  permitted:  *  *  * 

We  have  there,  Mr.  President,  deliberately  excluded  the  words 
“the  imperfect  development  of  industrial  organization.”  Of 
course,  we  consider  that  dangerous,  because  we  consider  that  no 
one  can  determine  properly  what  they  mean,  and  because,  in  any 
case,  we  are  opposed  to  anything  being  done  except  in  countries 
where  obviously  the  physical  circumstances  are  such  as  to  make  it 
necessary  to  have  a  deviation. 

Article  10  we  leave  out  because  we  believe  that  this  meeting  is 
the  first  of  a  series  of  meetings  in  connection  with  the  League  of 
Nations,  which  is  intended  to  abolish  war.  We  do  not  like  some 
of  the  terms,  some  of  the  words,  used  in  clause  10,  and  we  prefer 
that  it  should  be  left  out  of  account  altogether.  We  are  in  favor  of 
the  abolition  of  war.  This  meeting  is  a  meeting  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  war,  and  we  desire  that  in  our  convention  no  reference 
should  be  made  to  the  war,  but  all  references  should  be  made  to  the 
possibilities  of  peace  rather  than  to  the  possibilities  of  war.  [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

In  article  11  we  propose  that  the  provisions  of  this  convention  shall 
he  brought  into  force  not  later  than  July  1, 1920.  I  believe  that  the 
French  text  gives  the  proposal  for  the  entry  into  operation  of  the 
convention  as  January  1,  1921.  The  English  text  gives  the  1st  of 
July,  1921.  We  propose  that  the  convention  should  enter  into 
operation  not  later  than  July  1,  1920.  Then  we  go  on  to  make  one 
or  two  observations  of  a  general  character. 

In  adopting  the  above  text  the  International  Labor  Conference  at  Washington 
expresses  the  opinion  that  war-time  laws  restricting  the  rights  of  labor  should  be 
repealed  in  all  countries  so  as  to  eliminate  any  obstacle  to  the  application  of  the 
clauses  of  this  convention. 

Argument  is  not  needed  to  show  why  we  suggest  this.  Whatever 
the  result  may  be,  surely  those  laws  should  not  be  used  to  restrict  the 
application  of  any  agreement  made  at  this  convention.  We  suggest 
additional  articles.  We  suggest  that  in  no  case  shall  the  present  con¬ 
vention  prejudice  more  favorable  conditions  already  achieved  by  the 
workers  in  certain  countries,  either  through  legislation  or  through 
agreements  between  organizations  of  employers  and  workers,  and  in 
no  case  shall  the  present  convention  delay  the  application  of  the 
8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  in  countries  where  negotiations 
have  already  been  entered  upon  between  employers,  workers,  and 
Governments. 

(6)  The  fact  that  this  convention  does  not  examine  the  details  and  methods 
of  application  of  the  8-hour  day  in  the  merchant  marine  and  contains  no  clause 
relative  to  agricultural  labor  in  no  way  implies  that  any  oxception  is  intended.  The 
International  Labor  Office  is  charged  to  convene  a  special  meeting  of  each  of  these 
trades  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 


No  argument  is  needed,  I  think,  on  that  clause.  It  is  perfectly 
clear.  We  wish  these  trades  to  be  called  together  in  order  that  if 
possible  some  international  arrangement  may  be  made  to  put  agri¬ 
cultural  men  and  seamen  on  the  same  level  as  industrial  and  commer¬ 
cial  workers. 

tc)  The  workers’  delegates  demand  that  there  be  organized  in  each  country  a 
department  of  labor  inspection,  staffed  by  Government  officials  and  delegates  ap¬ 
pointed  by  workers’  organizations,  which  department,  among  other  things,  shall 
be  charged  with  the  investigation  of  the  application  of  international  conventions, 
and  shall  make  an  annual  report  to  the  International  Labor  O  ffice. 

(d )  The  workers’  delegates  recommend  that  all  countries  shall  introduce  a  Satur¬ 
day  afternoon  holiday  and  limit  the  working  week  to  41  hours. 

I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  finished  the  amendments  that  we 
suggest  to  the  draft  convention  which  forms  the  basis  of  discussion. 
I  shall  have  opportunities  probably  during  the  general  debate  to 
enter  into  questions  of  detail  and  I  will  suppress  my  natural  desire 
as  a  labor  representative  to  go  into  details  and  explain  our  case, 
believing  that  by  suppressing  myself  I  shall  help  the  convention 
the  sooner  to  get  to  the  definite  detail  work  which  alone  can  result 
in  success  in  this  conference  of  ours.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen, 
I  have  been  designated  on  behalf  of  the  French  employers’  delega¬ 
tion  to  read  a  statement  to  you,  which,  I  may  say,  will  be  brief. 
But  beforehand  I  should  like  to  say  a  few  words  in  reply  to  the  speech 
of  my  colleague  of  the  French  workers’  delegation,  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

It  is  not  my  intention,  gentlemen,  to  follow  this  speech  in  all  its 
details,  for  the  question  of  amendments  will  be  treated  as  the  dis¬ 
cussion  develops,  but  I  desire  to  examine  a  few  points  of  general 
interest. 

Mr.  Jouhaux,  taking  up  the  theme  of  Mr.  Gompers,  accuses  us  of 
decreeing  the  8-hour  day  in  principle  and  of  destroying  it  in  reality. 
Well,  will  he  allow  me  to  say  this  to  him :  Taking  up  his  own  formula, 
I,  too,  can  reproach  him  for  decreeing  in  article  1  the  maintenance  of 
production,  and  in  article  2  for  doing  everything  possible  to  diminish 
it,  in  view  of  the  fact,  gentlemen,  that  by  the  very  nature  of  things — 
and  every  experiment  that  has  been  tried  proves  this — production 
in  8  hours  is  less  than  in  10  hours,  pretty  nearly  in  proportion  to  the 
reduction  in  the  number  of  hours. 

Mr.  Jouhaux  thinks  that  the  question  should  be  considered  from 
an  international  point  of  view.  We,  on  the  other  hand,  think  that 
from  a  practical  point  of  view  this  is  an  error  which  we  can  not  pass 
without  a  protest.  We  believe  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  question 
of  lessening  the  number  of  working  hours  calls  for  an  examination 
from  a  national  point  of  view;  for  after  all,  gentlemen,  the  conditions 
of  different  nations  are  essentially  unlike.  There  are  nations  with 
a  low  birth  rate,  there  are  some  with  an  excess  of  population;  there 
are  nations  in  such  a  condition  with  regard  to  work  and  to  wages  as 
to  render  competition  impossible  for  them.  If  I  should  mention  the 
United  States  and  Japan  it  would  be  easy  for  me  to  demonstrate  that 
there  are  essential  conditions  in  these  countries  differing  from  those 
in  European  countries.  I  shall  only  point  out  in  passing  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  devastated  countries,  France,  Belgium,  Northern  Italy, 
Serbia,  and  others. 

We  can  not  then  admit  the  international  character  of  the  problem. 
But,  gentlemen,  we  employers  protest  against  the  insinuation  that 
the  welfare  of  our  collaborators,  the  workingmen,  is  not  among  our 
foremost  cares.  We  have  nothing  to  say  against  the  eloquent  and 
generous  statements  made  by  Mr.  Jouhaux;  I,  for  my  part,  would  be 
ready  to  subscribe  to  the  introduction  which  he  read  before  the 
enumeration  of  his  amendments.  But,  gentlemen,  do  you  think 
we  have  waited  until  to-day  to  examine  these  questions  of  welfare? 
We  must  give  conditions  time  to  develop.  Vice  President  Marshall 
just  now  recommended  patience;  I  believe,  Mr.  Jouhaux — pardon 
me  for  singling  you  out — that  you  could  and  should  follow  this  advice 
even  in  the  interest  of  the  8-hour  day.  These  reforms  in  customs 
are  not  accomplished  by  means  of  decrees  and  sudden  legislation. 
When  we  passed  from  12  hours  to  10  hours,  it  took  us  two  years  to  do 
it,  in  successive  stages.  To-day  they  are  making  us  jump  from  10 
hours  to  8  hours,  without  any  period  of  transition  whatever.  Permit 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


65 


me  to  believe  that  this  is  an  error,  even  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
enforcement  of  the  8-hour  law  and  its  introduction  as  a  custom. 

There  are  indeed,  gentlemen,  moral  considerations  involved,  and 
I  am  in  accord  with  Mr.  Jouhaux  in  saying  that  life  is  not  based  merely 
upon  arithmetical  formulas.  But  neither  is  life  based,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  merely  upon  arithmetical  formulas  and  moral  considera¬ 
tion;  it  is  based  also  upon  the  necessities  of  life,  and  I  have  in  my 
hand  a  dispatch  received  to-day  from  France,  which  demonstrates 
that  there  are.  necessities  superior  to  all  conventions.  They  are 
beginning  to  feel  a  shortage  of  coal;  and  do  you  know  who  has  just 
requested  that  extraordinary  measures  be  taken  to  remedy  this 
situation?  It  was  the  General  Federation  of  Labor,  it  was  the  col¬ 
leagues  of  Mr.  Jouhaux,  who  very  opportunely  came  and  said:  “Our 
industries  are  going  to  lack  coal,  work  is  going  to  stop.  It  is  a  dis¬ 
aster,  worse  for  the  workingmen  than  for  the  employers.  What  are 
you  going  to  do  about  it?  ”  Gentlemen ,  without  insisting  any  further, 
is  not  that  the  proof  that  after  all  there  are  necessities  of  life  which 
dominate  the  whole  situation,  both  for  the  employers  and  for  the 
workingmen,  and  that  before  making  provision  for  leisure  we  must 
live  and  eat  and  keep  warm;  in  short,  we  must  satisfy  all  the  needs 
of  existence?  I  shall  not  dwell  further  upon  this  point. 

This  is  in  fact  what  is  going  on,  ladies  and  gentlemen:  The  miners’ 
union  has  just  been  asked  to  consent  to  two  additional  hours  daily 
with  a  considerable  bonus,  and  the  discontinuance  of  certain  pas¬ 
senger  trains  and  freight  trains  has  just  been  requested,  in  favor  of 
coal  care.  I  shall  not  dwell  further  on  this  point,  but  will  conclude. 
What  I  wish  to  say  is,  that  what  is  desirable  is  not  always  possible, 
and  that,  I  repeat,  the  things  upon  which  life  is  conditioned  dominate 
all  situations  as  well  as  the  desires  of  both  employers  and  workers. 

In  conclusion  will  Mr.  Jouhaux  allow  me  to  express  a  personal 
regret?  We  discussed  together  in  the  month  of  April,  at  the  inter- 
ministerial  commission  at  Paris,  the  conditions  for  the  enforcement 
of  the  eight-hour  law  during  the  period  of  transition.  I  have  found 
him  to-day  much  less  generous — and  I  venture  to  reproach  him  for 
it — than  I  found  him  in  the  month  of  April,  and  he  was  not  any  too 
generous  then  with  regard  to  the  exceptions  to  be  allowed. 

Now,  gentlemen,  here  is  the  statement: 

The  French  employers  have  generally  accepted  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day 
or  the  48-hour  week. 

They  are  more  anxious  than  some  people  have  had  the  justice  to  admit,  for  the 
welfare  of  their  colleagues,  the  workingmen,  and  for  the  amehoration  of  their  living 
conditions,  which  are  often  hard.  They  would  have  adopted  this  principle  with 
less  hesitation  if  they  had  not  feared  the  consequences  of  a  hasty  introduction  of  so 
radical  a  modification  in  working  conditions. 

However,  they  have  rallied  to  the  adoption  of  the  measure,  their  colleagues,  the 
workingmen,  having  declared  in  the  course  of  the  deliberations  of  the  interminis- 
terial  commission  that  production  would  be  kept  up  and  even  increased. 

I  have  here  the  official  statement.  In  spite  of  the  difficulties  of 
the  present  moment,  they  have  no  intention  of  going  back  upon 
their  agreement,  and  they  intend  to  maintain  what  they  have 
adopted;  but  at  the  same  time  authoritative  voices  are  drawing 
attention  to  the  serious  dangers  of  the  present  world  situation. 

Under  these  conditions,  when  general  discussion  is  drawing  to  a 
close,  and  before  we  pass  to  an  examination  of  the  amendments  to 
the  draft  which  is  to  be  taken  as  a  basis  of  discussion,  the  French 
employers’  delegation  believes  it  is  fulfilling  a  most  important  duty 
to  society  in  submitting  the  following  points  to  all  the  members  of 
the  conference,  although  they  have  been  touched  upon: 

The  war  which  has  just  ended  and  the  epidemic  of  influenza  fol¬ 
lowing  upon  this  war  have  cost  at  the  very  least  10,000,000  human 
lives.  There  have  been  destroyed  throughout  the  world  from  1,000 
to  1,200  billions  of  wealth  slowly  accumulated  by  the  efforts  of 
successive  generations;  all  the  sources  of  the  world’s  production  have 
been  dried  up  to  a  fearful  extent. 

Hence,  as  an  unavoidable  consequence,  the  high  cost  of  living  is 
bound  to  increase  continually;  exchange  of  money  is  becoming  cost¬ 
lier;  the  countries  most  affected  by  the  war  are  no  longer  exporting, 
but  must  on  the  contrary  import  in  order  to  provide  for  their  most 
pressing  needs.  Under  these  conditions,  the  rate  of  exchange  in 


such  countries  is  growing  more  and  more  unfavorable  and  helps 
to  aggravate  the  situation.  In  addition  these  nations  are  bending 
under  the  weight  of  crushing  debts,  and  their  financial  situation  is 
disturbing  to  the  most  optimistic  persons.  Workingmen,  being  no 
longer  able  to  provide  for  their  needs,  have  of  necessity  demanded 
a  raise  in  wages;  this  continued  increase  results  in  an  indefinite 
soaring  of  the  cost  of  living. 

What  is  to  be  done  in  the  face  of  this  situation  which  is  continu¬ 
ously  growing  worse? 

Good  sense  and  the  most  elementary  power  of  reasoning  indicate 
that  there  are  but  two  remedies,  ladies  and  gentlemen:  To  work 
more  and  produce  more,  and  at  the  same  time  to  economize. 

Now,  I  ask,  is  that  what  we  are  doing? 

Production  has  not  been  kept  up  as  was  promised,  and  all  the 
hopes  conceived  and  all  the  promises  sincerely  made  have  been 
cruelly  belied  by  the  facts. 

I  have  here  much  evidence  which  I  shall  produce  in  the  course  of 
my  examination  of  the  amendments.  I  can  not  say  all  I  would  like 
to  say  to-day,  nor  can  I  say  it  all  at  once. 

All  the  official  organs  of  public  opinion  point  to  a  decrease  in  pro¬ 
duction,  which  is  about  in  proportion  to  the  two-hour  reduction;  in 
other  words,  at  least  15  to  20  per  cent. 

The  crisis  in  transportation,  made  worse  by  the  enforcement  of  the 
eight-hour  law,  is  every  day  more  and  more  apparent;  to  counteract 
this  it  will  be  necessary  to  withdraw  60,000  or  80,000  men  from  among 
the  already  insufficient  number  of  workers,  to  spend  large  amounts 
of  money,  and  to  increase  the  general  expenses  in  such  a  way  that  the 
cost  price  of  the  majority  of  manufactured  products  must  be  increased 
about  15  per  cent. 

I  have  with  me,  gentlemen,  a  colleague,  Mr.  Henri,  who  has  been 
delegated  by  the  important  Paris-Lyons-Mediterranean  Railway  Co. 
of  France.  Gentlemen,  the  charts  and  documents  which  Mr.  Henri 
has  with  him  bring  out  the  fact  (he  will  present  them  himself  in  the 
course  of  the  discussion  on  the  amendments)  that  this  company, 
which  made  a  profit  of  eight  and  one-half  millions  of  francs  before  the 
war,  is  now  threatened  with  a  deficit  for  one  year  alone  of  five  hun¬ 
dred  and  forty-three  million — more  than  half  a  billion — francs.  I 
hasten  to  add  that  this  deficit  is  not  entirely  due  to  the  eight-hour 
day,  of  course,  but  it  will  be  shown  that  the  enforcement  of  the  eight- 
hour  law  effects  a  decrease  in  profits  to  the  amount  of  15  per  cent,  and 
that  it  is  necessary  to  take  on  15,000  to  20,000  additional  workmen. 
If  you  multiply  this  figure  by  six  [sic],  the  number  of  the  main  railway 
companies  in  France,  you  will  get  these  60,000  or  80,000  men  of  whom 
I  spoke.  We  have  not  enough  workmen.  What  is  going  to  become 
of  us  when  they  take  in  addition  an  army  of  100,000  men,  among 
them  the  most  active  workmen,  from  this  already  insufficient  body? 

Whatever  may  be  said,  the  perfection  of  machinery  at  the  present 
time  is  a  physical  impossibility.  They  keep  throwing  this  reason  up 
to  us,  as  if  the  manufacturers  of  France  or  of  the  rest  of  the  world  were 
so  inferior  to  their  task  that  they  were  unable  to  supply  their  fac¬ 
tories  with  machinery  and  take  the  necessary  steps  to  carry  on  their 
industries.  Do  people  think  we  are  so  stupid?  Pardon  my  expres¬ 
sion.  Is  it  not  to  our  most  evident  and  most  elementary  interest  to 
acquire  the  machinery  which  permits  us  to  have  the  maximum  of 
production,  since  this  maximum  of  production  is  the  maximum  of 
profit?  But  admitting  that  we  have  been  to  a  certain  extent  lacking 
in  our  duty,  in  the  acquisition  of  new  machinery,  is  this  a  moment 
when  such  machinery  can  be  purchased?  None  is  to  be  found ;  there 
is  no  more  material,  the  war  having  put  a  stop  to  all  work,  in  favor  of 
war  activities.  There  is  no  more  machinery  to  be  bought,  even  sup¬ 
posing  that  the  inflated  price  could  be  paid  at  which  it  is  sold  just 
now.  It  is  no  longer  to  be  had.  All  the  more  reason  to  give  us  a 
chance  to  breathe  and  to  give  us  the  time  necessary  for  the  normal 
enforcement  of  the  law. 

The  abnormal  delays  in  construction  and  the  excessive  cost  of 
machinery  have  become  insurmountable  obstacles.  I  am  in  the  flax¬ 
spinning  industry.  Our  industry  in  France  amounted  to  550,000 
spindles  before  the  war.  The  Germans  destroyed  our  material  and 


146865“— 20 - 5 


6fi 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


we  have  hardly  more  than  60,000  to  70,000  spindles  left.  Now  in  the 
whole  world  there  are  only  two  and  a  half  makers,  if  I  may  say  so,  of 
supplies  for  flax-spinning  mills,  two  large  firms  and  one  small  one, 
and  they  are  in  Ireland.  Outside  of  these  there  is  nobody  who  manu¬ 
factures  this  machinery. 

All  of  us  have  ordered  supplies  and  it  will  be  two  and  a  half  or 
three  years  before  we  can  get  all  we  need.  What  do  you  expect  us 
to  do  in  this  situation? 

No  one,  however,  in  spite  of  these  reservations — speaking  in  all 
sincerity  I  say — no  one  wants  to  go  back  upon  the  principle  of  the 
48-hour  week.  All  that  is  proposed  is  to  regulate  its  enforcement 
while  waiting  for  the  reestablishment  of  an  approximately  normal 
situation.  The  world  will  recover  its  equilibrium  and  its  pros¬ 
perity  at  this  price,  only;  otherwise  we  are  moving  toward  the 
most  dire  calamities. 

An  illustrious  American,  whose  competence  and  lofty  impartiality 
can  not  be  gainsaid,  Mr.  Herbert  Hoover,  the  beneficent  savior  of 
the  invaded  regions  of  France  and  Belgium — and,  gentlemen,  you  will 
permit  me  to  pay  tribute  from  the  depths  of  a  grateful  heart  to  my 
former  chief,  Mr.  Hoover,  whose  assistant  I  was  in  distributing  food 
supplies  in  France — Mr.  Hoover,  the  friend  of  humanity,  and  neither 
employer  nor  employee.  [Applause.]  Ah,  yes,  you  are  right  in  ap¬ 
plauding  him,  my  dear  colleagues,  for  Mr.  Hoover  has  been  a  bene¬ 
factor  to  humanity,  and  I  desire  to  state  here  that  there  are  thousands 
of  women  and  children  in  Belgium  and  France  who  owe  their  means 
of  existence  to  him,  and  but  for  him  we  should  have  to  mourn  the 
death  of  tens  and  tens  of  thousands  of  people  by  starvation.  Mr. 
Hoover,  I  say,  showed  this  in  terms  which  one  can  not  forego  pre¬ 
senting  here,  in  his  “Report  on  the  Economic  Situation  in  Europe,  ” 
published  by  the  British  Food  Administration  in  the  “National  Food 
Journal,  ”  July  3  last. 

This  is  what  he  says: 

It  must  be  the  aim  of  Governments  to  obtain  raw  materials,  to  obtain  machinery 
and  whatever  labor  that  production  requires.  Also,  Governments  must  try  and  make 
it  understood  to  their  citizens  that  the  maximum  individual  effort  is  at  present  needed. 
Europe  no  longer  has  a  surplus  of  indispensable  products.  There  are  one  hundred 
millions  of  men  called  upon  to  endure  the  lack  of  the  necessities  of  life.  If  we  wish  to 
make  revolutionary  experiments,  it  is  useless  to  mourn  over  the  high  cost  of  living,  for 
the  high  cost  of  living  is  only  a  symptom  of  deficient  production;  it  has  great  instruc¬ 
tive  value. 

Who  knows  better  than  Mr.  Hoover  the  value  of  instruction?  Mr. 
Hoover  has  observed  the  world  situation  with  regard  to  the  food  supply ; 
he  has  been  all  over  Europe ;  for  four  years  and  a  half  he  purchased  a 
portion  of  his  supplies  in  North  America  and  in  South  America;  he 
knows  the  situation  better  than  anyone  else.  Are  we  going  to  neglect 
the  lessons  which  fall  from  lips  so  authoritively? 

All  the  finest  speeches  in  the  world  will  not  in  any  way  change 
either  the  facts  or  the  evidence  of  these  facts — I  must  say  that  I  am 
touched  by  the  noble  sentiments  expressed  by  Mr.  Jouhaux,  voiced 
in  language  to  which  I  render  homage,  and  with  a  correctness  and 
a  moderation  which  do  him  honor — but,  I  repeat,  all  that  does  not  re¬ 
move  the  impossible  and  does  not  modify  the  basic  needs  of  life,  before 
which  we  must  necessarily  bow.  Public  opinion  has  been  aroused 
on  all  hands;  the  workingmen  are  interested,  like  the  rest  of  the  world , 
in  seeing  that  misery  and  deprivation  of  necessities  of  life  do  not 
touch  them  as  closely  as  they  do  ourselves.  At  any  rate,  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  French  employers’  delegation,  desirous  of  performing 
their  duty  in  such  a  manner  as  to  safeguard  the  future  and  not  expose 
their  country  to  the  direst  extremities,  submit  these  considerations 
of  deep  moral  and  economic  import  to  the  most  serious  attention 
of  their  colleagues  representing  workers,  employers,  and  Governments. 
They  beg  that  these  considerations  be  not  lost  sight  of  in  the  course 
of  the  debate  which  is  about  to  begin,  and  they  ask  that  the  measures 
taken  may  fulfill  the  expectations  raised  in  all  persons  of  good  sense 
and  sound  judgment  by  our  experience  and  by  our  concern  for  the 
welfare  of  the  entire  human  race. 


Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  1  fully 
appreciated  yesterday  the  remarks  made  by  you  with  regard  to  the 
responsibility  or,  I  may  say,  the  irresponsibility  which  was  referred 
to,  and  did  not  intend  to  refute  publicly  the  wrong  impression  which 
I  fear  has  been  created  in  the  minds  of  some  that  the  employers  were 
not  only  adverse  to  the  introduction  of  a  48-hour  week  but  desired 
to  get  back  some  of  the  hours  which  the  workers  have  now  got  for 
leisure.  In  view,  however,  of  the  speech  made  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  and 
the  resolutions  put  forward  by  him,  I  think  it  right  that  I  should 
state  in  the  same  way  as  my  friend  Mr.  Gu6rin,  that  the  position  of 
the  majority  of  the  employers  here  present,  and  more  especially  as 
regards  the  employers  of  Great  Britain,  is  that  they  accept  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  48-hour  week,  and  are  also  prepared  to  accept  the  draft 
convention  as  a  basis  of  discussion  for  putting  forward  amendments 
which  in  our  opinion  would  avoid  some  of  the  dangers  to  the  nations 
and  their  inhabitants  which  we  fear  are  bound  to  arise  if  modifica¬ 
tions  are  not  introduced.  The  reasons  for  not  granting  immediately 
wholesale  reductions  in  working  hours  without  most  careful  con¬ 
sideration  from  all  points  of  view  have  been  most  ably  put  forward 
this  afternoon  by  Mr.  Parsons  and  Mr.  Guerin,  representing  impor¬ 
tant  countries,  Canada  and  France,  and  whose  speeches  we  have  heard. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President, 
I  believe  I  should  be  expressing  the  wishes  of  a  great  majority  of  the 
members  of  the  conference  if  I  asked  your  permission  to  move  that 
the  general  discussion  on  the  first  item  of  our  agenda,  the  8-hour  day 
or  the  48-hour  week,  should  now  close.  We  commenced  the  dis¬ 
cussion  on  Tuesday  and  to-day  is  Friday.  We  have  been  at  it  for 
four  days.  But  I  recognize  that  the  hour  of  closing  is  long  past  and 
that  a  number  of  delegates  have  left  the  room,  and  if  you  think,  sir, 
that  it  would  be  better  to  postpone  the  motion  till  Monday,  I  should 
desire  in  that  case  to  give  notice  that  I  propose  to  move  the  termina¬ 
tion  of  the  general  discussion  the  first  thing  at  our  sitting  on  Monday 
afternoon.  But  if  you  are  of  opinion  that  the  motion  is  now  in  order 
I  would  beg  to  move  the  motion  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne.  Are  you  ready  to  vote? 

Mr.  OARLIER  (Belgium).  I  call  for  the  floor  in  order  to  give  my 
full  support  to  the  statement  just  made  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks  on  be¬ 
half  of  the  great  majority  of  employers;  I  do  this  most  cordially  and 
most  explicitly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Nolens. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  I  must  oppose  a  motion  whose 
object  is  to  stop  general  discussion.  For  whole  days  at  a  time  and 
to-day  in  particular  we  have  listened  to  employers  and  employees; 
it  seems  to  me  that  there  are  still  other  points  of  view  to  be  expressed. 
But,  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  consider  the  moment  well  chosen;  a 
large  number  of  the  delegates  to  the  conference  have  already  left 
the  room  under  the  impression  that  we  were  to  adjourn  at  6  o’clock, 
and  it  is  now  more  than  half  past  6.  I  think,  Mr.  President,  that 
it  is  inadvisable  to  present  this  motion  now,  and  it  appears  to  me 
that  it  would  be  better  to  give  an  opportunity  to  those  who  have 
not  yet  had  a  chance  to  express  their  opinion.  Furthermore,  I 
think  that  we  ought  to  limit  each  speech  to  15  minutes,  in  order  to 
give  all  the  Government  delegates  and  the  delegates  from  those 
countries  which  have  perhaps  not  been  so  progressive  as  ours  an 
opportunity  to  state  their  opinions  on  the  question. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Being  desirous  of  returning  good  for 
evil,  I  support  Dr.  Nolens’  request. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived, 
and  objection  being  raised  to  the  consideration  of  the  motion  that 
has  been  presented,  the  conference  will  stand  adjourned  until  2.30 
on  Monday  afternoon.  The  first  business  before  the  conference  at 
that  time  will  be  the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.35  o’clock  p.  m.  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Monday,  Nov.  10,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


67 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Lgvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  (or 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Czechoslovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Luis  Marino  Perez  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas). 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 


Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 


Japan — Concluded. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr.  Ole 
Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  Antomio  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 


Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos<5  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaei co. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  N.  Stoykovich  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 
South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominicl. 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 


TENTH  SESSION— MONDAY,  NOVEMBER  10,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.40  o’clock  p.  m.,  Right  Hon.  G.  N. 
Barnes,  Government  delegate  from  Great  Britain  and  vice  president 
of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Secretary  Wilson,  unfortunately,  is  unable 
to  be  present  and  has  asked  me  to  take  his  chair  for  the  time  being. 
I  will  now  call  on  the  secretary  to  read  some  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  You  have  before  you — in  Eng¬ 
lish  only — the  report  of  the  committee  on  applications  for  admission- 
Unfortunately,  owing  to  the  difficulties  of  translation,  the  prepara¬ 
tion  of  the  French  version  has  been  somewhat  delayed.  It  is  now 
with  the  printer,  however,  and  I  hope  to  be  able  to  distribute  it 
either  to-night  or  very  early  to-morrow  morning. 

I  also  received  last  night  a  number  of  amendments,  which  were 
sent  to  the  printer,  but  he  has  been  short-handed,  and  they  have 
not  arrived  in  time  for  distribution  at  the  beginning  of  this  sitting. 
I  expect  them  at  3  o’clock.  They  will  be  distributed  as  soon  as  they 
arrive. 

The  committee  of  selection  have  proposed  the  following  to  consti¬ 
tute  the  committee  to  examine  the  conditions  in  tropical  countries 
with  reference  to  the  question  of  the  hours  of  work.  They  have 
proceeded  on  the  principle  of  giving  full  representation  to  the  coun¬ 
tries  principally  concerned  and  of  adding  three  Government,  three 
employers’,  and  three  workers’  delegates  from  nontropical  countries 
to  complete  the  committee.  The  committee  will  be  constituted  as 
follows:  China,  one  representative;  India,  three  representatives — 
one  Government,  one  employers’,  one  workers’;  Japan,  three  repre¬ 
sentatives — one  Government,  one  employer’s,  one  worker’s;  Persia, 
one  representative;  Siam,  one  representative;  South  Africa,  three 
representatives — one  Government,  one  employer’s,  one  worker’s; 
tropical  America,  three  representatives — one  Government,  one 
employer’s,  one  worker’s;  together  with  the  following  delegates  from 
other  countries:  Mr.  Barnes,  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches,  Dr.  Sulzer, 


Mr.  Marjoribanks,  Mr.  Gu6rin,  Mr.  Zagleniczny,  Mr.  Oudegeest,  Mr. 
Baldesi,  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning. 

In  order  that  the  three  representatives  for  tropical  America  may 
be  chosen,  may  I  suggest  that  the  delegates  from  Central  and  South 
America  meet,  if  possible,  this  evening  in  order  to  make  their 
nominations? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  conference  will  now  proceed  to  vote, 
please,  upon  the  indorsement  of  the  committee  of  selection.  Will 
all  those  in  favor  please  signify  by  holding  up  one  hand? 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down;  are  there  any  against? 

Carried  unanimously. 

The  Clerk.  The  Government  delegate  from  Cuba  informs  the 
meeting  that  he  is  unable  to  attend,,  and  if  there  is  no  objection  he 
will  be  represented  by  Mr.  Luis  Marino  Perez. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht,  of  the  Swiss  delegation,  is  unable  to 
attend  this  afternoon  and  will  be  represented  by  Dr.  Wegmann. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  On  Friday  after¬ 
noon  I  moved  that  the  general  discussion  on  this  item  of  our  agenda 
should  now  close.  It  was  with  some  surprise  that  I  heard  Mgr. 
Nolens  oppose  that  proposal,  as  Mgr.  Nolens  has  always  been  a 
great  friend  of  expedition  in  our  proceedings.  I  understand,  how¬ 
ever,  that  Mgr.  Nolens  desires  to  place  before  the  conference 
the  views  of  his  Government,  and  I  should  be  the  last  person  to 
wish  to  stand  between  Mgr.  Nolens  and  the  conference.  If  the 
conference  therefore  will  allow  me  to  do  so,  I  desire  to  withdraw 
my  motion  for  the  closure,  for,  say,  a  short  period — I  suggest  a 
period  of  an  hour — in  order  to  allow  Mgr.  Nolens,  and  I  believe 
one  or  possibly  two  other  delegates  who  wish  to  speak,  to  make 
their  speeches.  If  that  course  is  permitted  me  I  will  move  ter- 


68 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


urination  of  the  debate — which  I  believe  is  generally  desired  by 
the  conference — say  about  half  past  3. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  We  didn’t  hear  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  had  the  floor  because 
he  had  moved  the  closure  on  Friday  afternoon.  But  he  now  sug¬ 
gests  that  in  consequence  of  Mgr.  Nolens  and  one  or  two  more 
wishing  to  speak,  he  is  willing  to  withdraw  the  closure  for  a  certain 
time,  and  he  suggests  an  hour.  Inasmuch  as  the  closure  can  be 
moved  at  any  time,  I  think  it  is  unnecessary  to  have  reference  to  an 
hour  or  any  certain  time,  and  therefore  I  would  suggest  that  Sir 
Malcolm’s  proposition  should  be  simply  put  in  the  form  that  he 
withdraws  his  motion  for  the  time  being.  Will  that  be  agreeable, 
Sir  Malcolm? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  you  agreeable?  We  will  take  that  by 
general  assent. 

Mr.  MUTO  (Japan).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Muto. 

Mr.  MUTO  (Japan).  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order,  which  my  secre 
tary  will  read. 

[The  following  was  read  by  Mr.  Muto’s  secretary:] 

Mr.  Muto  proposes  the  amendment  proposed  hy  Mr.  Jouhaux  for  the  workers’ 
delegates  to  article  9  of  the  draft  convention  which  proposes  the  exclusion  of  the 
words  “the  imperfect  development  of  industrial  organization,”  is  out  of  order  for 
the  reason  that  article  405  of  clause  3  of  the  peace  treaty  provides  that  this  “conference 
shall  have  due  regard”  to  “the  imperfect  development  of  industrial  organization” 
in  countries  where  such  exists,  and  further  provides  that  “this  conference  shall 
suggest  the  modifications  ”  required  to  meet  the  case  of  such  countries,  and  therefore 
the  said  amendment  to  article  9  of  the  draft  convention  can  not  be  lawfully  submitted 
to  this  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  article  405  of  the 
peace  treaty  is  mandatory  and  not  optional  in  character,  but  this  is 
a  matter  that  need  not  be  settled  now.  As  you  all  know,  a  special 
committee  has  been  created  to  deal  with  those  countries  for  which 
special  provision  has  to  be  made,  and,  therefore,  it  is  a  matter  that 
must  be  settled  primarily  by  that  committee.  Ultimately,  if  need 
be,  it  will  be  settled  by  the  full  conference  on  the  report  of  that 
committee. 

We  will  now  resume  general  discussion.  I  have  much  pleasure 
in  calling  upon  Mr.  Varela,  of  Uruguay. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  great 
nations  are  not  the  only  ones  in  this  world.  The  small  countries 
have  also  played  an  indispensable  role  in  the  history  of  humanity, 
and  we  have  only  to  invoke  the  glorious  name  of  Belgium  and  her 
immortal  actions  for  everybody  to  pay  her  homage. 

Permit  me,  then,  to  speak  briefly  as  the  representative  of  a  country 
which  has  no  great  expanse  of  territory  and  is  not  inhabited  by  tens 
of  millions  of  men,  but  a  country  which  has  tried  to  develop  by  politi¬ 
cal  action  its  social  legislation  along  with  what  is  the  best  thing  in 
life,  the  culture  of  the  mind. 

.  I  believe  that  my  opinion  may  be  of  interest,  because  while  speak¬ 
ing  in  the  name  of  a  country  radical  in  the  matter  of  labor  legislation 
I  shall,  in  general,  support  a  compromise  along  the  line  of  that  pro¬ 
posed  by  the  committee  of  selection. 

In  the  Republic  of  Uruguay  not  only  the  48-hour  week  but  also 
the  8-hour  day  has  been  compulsory  for  four  years.  The  ideal 
upheld  by  the  workers’  representatives  in  this  conference  is  a  prac¬ 
tical  reality  in  my  country,  and  I  shall  be  happy  to  see  it  spread 
over  the  whole  world.  But  to  us  it  seems  impossible  to  hope  to 
impose  it  brusquely  on  peoples  of  differing  races  and  types  of  mind, 
because  our  decisions  will  have  to  be  ratified  by  the  foreign  par¬ 
liaments  or  other  authorities  concerned.  Let  us  therefore  endeavor 
to  arrive  at  balance  and  compromise  if  we  wish  our  conventions  to 
be  anything  but  scraps  of  paper,  so  that  they  may  truly  bring  a  little 
rest  and  hope  to  all  the  nations. 

As  for  ourselves,  we  have  decided  to  keep  our  laws,  because,  the 
distinguished  representative  from  Sweden  to  the  contrary  notwith¬ 
standing,  I  believe  we  are  entitled,  according  to  the  last  paragraph 
of  article  405  of  the  peace  treaty,  to  retain  previous  legislation, 


provided  that  it  be  to  greater  advantage  of  workers  than  the  inter¬ 
national  convention. 

Fixing  the  limit  of  the  working-day  originally  stirred  up  tremen¬ 
dous  controversies  in  my  country.  From  1906,  when  it  was  proposed 
to  Parliament  by  President  Batile,  until  1915,  when  it  was  promul¬ 
gated  by  President  Viera,  the  proposal  was  examined  from  every 
side  and,  I  must  confess,  provoked  bitter  criticism  from  one  party. 

The  same  story  could  doubtless  be  told  by  many  of  our  colleagues, 
and  if  I  recall  to  you  contests  so  unoriginal  between  conservatives 
and  radicals,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  attention  to  the  fact 
that  once  the  reform  became  an  established  custom  it  was  accepted 
by  those  very  people  who  previously  opposed  it,  and  is  to-day 
recognized  as  profitable  by  the  great  majority  of  our  fellow  citizens. 

An  excellent  philosophy  can  be  drawn  from  this  simple  fact. 
It  is  a  modest  example  which  I  offer  to  the  enlightened  reflection  of 
my  colleagues,  as  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  do  at  Paris  as  pleni¬ 
potentiary  to  the  peace  conference.  The  prosperity  and  wealth 
of  our  country  are  greater  than  ever  to-day,  its  industries  more 
extensively  developed,  and  I  can  say  that  we  are  not  afraid  of  rivalry 
from  countries  who  are  in  the  same  position  as  we. 

I  know  that  the  exigencies  of  great  industrial  countries  are  dif¬ 
ferent.  but  I  believe  that  nations  on  the  same  level  with  us  can 
profit  from  our  experience.  We  believe  that  in  the  present  state  of 
civilization  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week 
should  be  adopted  immediately,  but  with  a  well-defined  resolution 
to  improve  our  conventions  in  the  future  and  to  establish  a  universal 
regulation  for  the  8-hour  day. 

We  believe  that  all  men  should  have  leisure  for  intellectual  and 
moral  development.  Production  itself  will  benefit  in  the  course  of 
time  from  a  more  widespread  diffusion  of  culture.  Even  if  justice 
did  not  commend  this  formula,  the  interests  of  civilization  should 
urge  it.  This  reform,  together  with  other  measures,  I  will  not  say  of 
protection,  but  of  social  right,  will  contribute  toward  safeguarding 
for  the  world  the  democratic  institutions  so  dear  to  many  of  us. 
I  am  not  one  of  those  who  think  that  these  reforms  will  put  an  end  to 
the  demands  of  labor.  I  should  be  a  poor  psychologist  if  I  thought  so, 
because  the  desire  for  improvement  is  for  the  good  of  humanity, 
and  should  be  inextinguishable  in  minds  enlightened  by  culture. 
But  we  know  that  claims  and  conquests  operate  and  are  achieved 
through  legal  channels  and  not  by  means  of  revolutionary  move¬ 
ments,  which  I,  for  my  part,  heartily  condemn,  because  I  do  not 
believe  that  in  the  present  state  of  society  they  attain  anything 
permanent  or  fruitful. 

Quotations,  Mr.  President,  are  not  in  the  best  taste,  but  you  will 
forgive  me  for  concluding  with  a  quotation.  If  we  take  up  a  draft 
like  that  recommended  by  the  commission  we  shall  be  able  to 
repeat  the  immortal  words  of  Waldeck-Rousseau:  “We  have  done 
our  duty;  time  will  do  its  work.”  [Applause]. 

Mr.  CALVO  (Panama).  The  regulation  of  the  8-hour  workday 
and  the  48-hour  week  is  not  a  fanciful  dogma  but  the  result  of 
much  experience  and  the  fruit  of  scientific  observations,  carried 
out  by  means  of  the  ergograph,  an  apparatus  intended  to  measure 
the  degree  of  fatigue  and  the  resistance  of  individuals  in  accordance 
with  the  calories  which  they  have  stored  up  through  sufficient 
nourishment. 

For  this  reason  it  is  not  necessary  to  enter  upon  arbitrary  dis¬ 
quisitions  nor  to  suppose  that  such  a  regulation  is  going  to  disturb 
social  and  economic  life.  The  8-hour  workday  and  48-hour  week  is  a 
regulation  of  a  world-wide  character,  and  one  which  results  dis¬ 
advantageous^  neither  in  temperate  nor  in  tropical  countries. 

With  regard  to  production,  assurance  can  well  be  given  that  if 
all  the  men  performed  productive  labor,  and  if  there  were  notin  the 
organizations  so  many  parasitic  brotherhoods,  who  work  only  four 
hours,  we  could  very  well  produce  all  that  is  necessary  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  consumption,  without  having  to  commit  the  cow¬ 
ardice  of  making  mothers,  old  people,  and  children  work. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  production  of  a  country  does  not  have  to 
go  beyond  the  necessities  of  domestic  consumption.  To  wish  te 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


69 


produce  more  than  is  necessary  is  to  seek  the  great  complication  of 
crises  through  excess  production.  If  a  country  devastated  and  de¬ 
populated  by  the  war  desires  to  establish  its  production  on  the  same 
conditions  as  before,  it  has  not  to  augment  the  number  of  hours  in 
the  time  of  the  workers  but  to  increase  primarily  the  number  of  its 
population. 

And  in  proportion  as  this  population  increases,  in  the  same  pro¬ 
portion  will  production  increase,  because  it  is  axiomatic  that  pro¬ 
duction  is  correlative  with  consumption,  as  the  latter  is  correlative 
with  the  number  of  inhabitants.  Do  not  forget  that  international 
commerce  differs  essentially  from  domestic  commerce,  as  the  eminent 
French  economist,  Charles  Gide,  has  demonstrated.  A  country 
exports  in  order  to  import  what  it  can  not  produce  itself,  but  in 
any  case  in  order  to  make  profit.  From  this  it  follows  that  the 
countries  which  export  much  have  to  import  much,  and  those  which 
export  little  have  to  import  little. 

For  all  these  reasons  I  suggest  to  the  delegates  of  the  Latin-Ameri- 
can  nations  that  they  declare  themselves  in  favor  of  the  regulation 
of  8  hours’  work  a  day  and  a  48-hour  week  in  general. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mgr.  Nolens. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President,  ladies,  and  gentle¬ 
men,  in  the  first  place  I  thank  the  conference  for  the  consideration 
given  the  small  States.  I  hope  that  it  is  a  sign  that  a  similar  atti¬ 
tude  will  be  maintained  in  regard  to  other  matters  in  the  future. 

As  the  Government  delegate  from  a  country  whose  legislation  goes 
further  than  the  draft  of  the  organizing  committee,  further  than  the 
proposals  of  the  employers’  delegates,  and,  in  the  most  essential 
point,  even  further  than  the  amendments  of  the  workers’  delegates 
(an  amendment  which  constitutes  a  new  proposal  rather  than  an 
amendment),  I  wish  to  submit  certain  considerations  to  the  con¬ 
ference. 

We  hope  that  the  practical,  concrete,  and  definite  result  of  this 
conference  will  be  a  convention  which  will  have  the  approval  of  all 
present  and  future  members  of  the  League  of  Nations.  But  already 
we  realize,  as  a  matter  of  incalculable  moral  importance,  that  what¬ 
ever  our  differences,  we  have  here  for  the  first  time  the  expression, 
the  synthesis,  may  I  say,  of  international  public  opinion;  not  only 
of  the  workers’,  but  also  of  the  employers’  and  Government  repre¬ 
sentatives,  in  favor  of  limiting  the  duration  of  adult  labor. 

It  may  be  observed  that  a  long  time — too  long  a  time — passed 
before  the  public  conscience  was  awakened.  I  need  only  mention 
the  fact  that  it  was  nearly  30  years  ago  that  the  papal  encyclical 
“De  Rerum  Novarum”  contributed  so  considerably  and  powerfully 
toward  changing  public  opinion  that  it  may  be  said  to  have  made 
contributions  which  can  not  be  expressed  in  mathematical  terms, 
but  which  can  be  appraised  and  appreciated  by  those  who,  like 
myself,  have  been  able  during  these  30  years  to  follow  the  changes 
of  opinion,  not  only  of  Catholic  employers  but  of  everybody  con¬ 
cerned  with  the  labor  question. 

At  the  present  time  it  is  an  accomplished  fact  (1)  that  the  8-hour 
day  is  in  force  in  many  industries;  (2)  that  it  is  adopted  by  law  in 
several  countries;  and  (3)  that  it  is  accepted  as  a  principle  by  a  con¬ 
ference  of  Government,  workers’,  and  employers’  delegates  from 
more  than  30  countries  in  different  parts  of  the  world. 

The  question  is  now  deemed  ready  for  treatment  in  the  interna¬ 
tional  field,  by  the  most  prudent  as  well  as  the  most  hesitant.  In 
his  book  entitled  “The  Eight-Hour  Day,”  Mr.  de  Morsier,  an  au¬ 
thority  on  the  question  with  which  we  are  concerned — it  may  be 
seen  that  I  am  careful  to  consult  the  conservative — says:  “The  law 
can  not  pretend  to  impose  a  reform  which,  without  previous  experi¬ 
ence,  might  cause  very  doubtful  consequences.” 

Instead,  the  law  must  seek  to  base  itself  upon  a  firm  foundation  of 
public  opinion,  such  as  is  already  beginning  to  assume  definite  and 
concrete  form. 

Mr.  President,  a  firm  foundation  of  public  opinion  is  taking  shape 
the  whole  world  over,  in  a  general  and  definite  fashion  among  econo¬ 
mists,  ethical  writers,  and  among  even  the  least  progressive  em¬ 
ployers,  as  well  as  among  the  workers.  Realization  has  not  only 


begun,  but  it  has  made  tremendous  progress,  and  is  making  even 
greater  strides  every  day.  It  is  only  a  question  of  making  the 
measure  a  general  one  to  give  its  benefits  the  fullest  scope.  For  us, 
it  is  a  question  of  consolidating  the  results  of  progress  and  equitably 
distributing  them.  Being  agreed  on  the  principle,  we  now  have  to 
decide  on  the  method  of  its  application.  As  a  cautious  man,  I  must 
admit  that  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  account  must  be  taken  of  the 
exigencies  of  modem  economic  life  and  the  present  situation  which 
necessitate  exceptions,  and  which  make  certain  transitional  measures 
inevitable,  particularly  within  the  field  in  question.  Distinction 
must  be  made  between  the  absolute  ideal  and  the  method  of  its 
realization. 

This  practical  application  of  the  ideal  depends  in  a  large  measure  on 
the  aim  which  is  proposed  and  on  prevalent  motives,  and  therefore 
I  will  take  the  liberty  of  taking  a  few  more  minutes  to  explain  the 
motive  as  understood  by  the  Dutch  legislator. 

There  is  the  economic  motive  which  has  been  prevalent  for  a  long 
time,  which  was  the  only  motive  for  a  good  many  persons,  and 
which  perhaps  still  is  for  some;  that  is,  that  the  bodily  strength  of 
the  worker  has  limits  of  endurance  which  vary  according  to  the  kind 
of  employment,  but  beyond  which  it  is  contrary  to  the  principle  of 
efficiency  to  go.  Work  beyond  these  limits  is  detrimental  and  inju¬ 
rious  not  only  to  the  worker  himself,  but  also  to  future  generations, 
when  one  takes  into  account  human  vitality  and  the  energy  of  the 
people,  the  most  important  and  noble  part  of  economic  capital. 
This  is  not  the  highest  motive,  and  yet  from  this  motive  alone, 
which  takes  the  point  of  view  of  the  effort  required  and  the  fatigue 
involved,  will  work  ever  be  limited.  There  exists  another  motive, 
of  a  social  and  ethical  character,  which  in  these  days  has  been  raised 
to  the  first  place.  There  was  a  period  during  which  in  almost  all 
countries  it  seemed  to  be  forgotten  both  in  economic  life  and  in 
the  government  of  the  country  that  man  was  not  a  machine  to  be 
worked,  but  a  rational,  moral,  and  intellectual  being,  made  in  the 
image  of  God,  and  having,  by  his  nature  and  destiny,  faculties  and 
requirements  which  need  time  and  leisure  for  their  development, 
improvement,  and  satisfaction. 

To  quote  the  words  of  the  peace  treaty,  it  has  been  forgotten 
“that  labor  should  not  be  regarded  merely  as  a  commodity  or  article 
of  commerce.”  It  also  seems  to  have  been  forgotten — and  those 
who  are  old  enough  will  remember  this — that  our  economic  life, 
in  no  matter  what  shape,  exists  for  the  express  benefit  of  man, 
including  the  worker  in  modern  industry;  and  that  economic  work 
in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word,  as  well  as  manual  labor  itself,  is  a 
means  to  an  end  and  not  the  end  itself.  The  chief  aim,  the  first  aim 
of  labor  is  described  in  the  clear-cut  style  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas, 
ad  victum  quaerendum. 

At  the  present  time,  thanks  to  the  influence  of  the  teachings  of 
the  papal  encyclical  “De  Rerum  Novarum”  first  spread  among  the 
Catholics,  a  general  conviction  is  prevalent  that  the  worker  should 
have  the  necessary  time  and  leisure  not  only  to  maintain  health, 
but  also  to  do  his  duty  and  exercise  his  rights  as  an  intelligent, 
religious,  intellectual,  moral,  and  social  being.  This  twofold  motive 
was  the  inspiration  of  the  peace  treaty  which  is  the  basis  of  our 
conference,  the  report  of  which  says  the  object  is  “  to  protect  workers 
from  excessive  fatigue,  and  also  to  insure  them  reasonable  leisure 
as  well  as  opportunities  for  recreation  and  a  normal  life.” 

Dutch  legislation  has  been  guided  by  this  twofold  motive.  The 
upper  chamber,  which  might  be  called  the  most  conservative  part 
of  our  Parliament,  has  just  unanimously  passed  a  new  labor  law 
which  will  probably  come  into  force  the  1st  of  next  January.  This 
law,  which  includes  the  inevitable  temporary  provisions  of  such 
legislation,  states  in  the  first  place  that  14  years  is  the  age  for  the 
admission  of  children  to  employment.  Children  under  16  have  been 
prohibited  from  working  in  mines  ever  since  1906.  The  age  of  the 
so-called  adolescent  workers  is  raised  to  18.  As  a  general  rule  work 
on  Sundays  and  night  work  are  prohibited,  and  the  time  of  the  dura¬ 
tion  of  labor  in  industrial  establishments,  bakeries,  and  commercial 
offices  is  limited  to  8  hours  per  day  and  48  hours  per  week.  This  is 


70 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


the  logical  solution  if  the  weekly  rest  is  taken  into  consideration, 
as  well  as  the  general  principles  contained  in  article  427  of  the  peace 
treaty. 

If  we  wish  to  comply  with  part  13  of  the  peace  treaty  which  deals 
with  the  question  we  are  discussing;  if  we  wish  to  uphold  these 
principles,  namely,  determination  not  only  of  the  maximum  dura¬ 
tion  of  the  working  week,  but  also  of  the  working  day;  and  if  we 
wish  the  so-called  English  week  already  adopted  in  many  establish¬ 
ments  in  our  country,  it  goes  without  saying,  Mr.  President,  that  in 
the  preparation  and  discussion  of  this  law  the  same  objections  will 
be  encountered  which  have  been  so  well  and  eloquently  repeated 
in  this  assembly,  particularly  the  objection  that  this  measure  would 
injure  production. 

I  shall  not  prolong  this  speech,  but  shall  note  only  a  few  points. 
It  has  been  estimated  in  the  first  place  that,  judging  from  experi¬ 
ence,  injury  to  production  would  not  result  in  the  case  of  a  great 
variety  of  trades  and  industries;  in  the  second  place  that  this  kind 
of  argument  always  presupposes  that  the  work  should  be  done  by  the 
same  number  of  workers,  in  the  same  situation,  and  with  the  same 
means ;  in  the  third  place,  on.the  other  hand,  that  there  is  an  abundance 
of  labor  available  in  many  countries  as  proved  by  the  existence  of 
unemployment;  and  in  the  fourth  place,  that  it  is  quite  true  that 
many  of  these  unemployed  persons  are  not  fitted  for  work  in  these 
establishments;  the  decrease  in  working  hours,  to  which  this  law 
looks,  would  necessitate  an  increase  in  the  number  of  workers;  but 
as  a  general  thing,  the  industries  will  have  time  in  which  to  adapt 
themselves  practically  to  the  new  situation  by  means  of  technical 
education  on  one  hand  and  improvement  of  machinery  on  the  other. 
In  the  fifth  place,  a  question  may  be  raised  as  to  which  is  more 
worth  while  from  the  point  of  view  of  production,  stability,  and 
continuity  in  industrial  labor — limited  working  hours,  which  we 
hope  to  realize  by  our  law  on  this  subject,  or  longer  working  hours 
with  the  uncertainty  and  interruptions  caused  by  strikes  which 
grow  more  and  more  menacing. 

But,  Mr.  President — and  I  wish  to  call  the  special  attention  of 
the  assembly  to  this  point — the  wise  Dutch  legislator  was  aware 
of  the  fact  that  it  would  injure  the  cause  if  an  attempt  were  made  to 
put  the  law  into  operation  at  once,  without  allowing  industry  time 
in  which  to  adapt  itself  to  the  prescribed  regulations.  That  is  the 
reason  for  articles  26  and  27  in  this  splendid  law,  which  contain 
temporary  provisions  with  regard  to  labor  in  factories  and  work¬ 
shops.  According  to  article  26,  the  minister,  through  the  medium 
of  a  labor  commission  which  is  to  be  established,  and  to  which 
both  workers  and  employers  will  belong,  may  allow  for  two  years 
at  most  after  the  law  enters  into  operation  a  worker  in  a  factory 
or  workshop  to  work  one  additional  hour  per  day  or  five  per 
week,  etc. 

By  virtue  of  article  27  permission  may  be  granted  by  governmen¬ 
tal  regulation,  for  four  years  after  the  law  takes  effect,  allowing 
workers  employed  in  specified  industries  or  engaged  in  specified 
classes  of  work,  or  in  work  to  be  executed  under  specified  condi¬ 
tions,  to  work  in  factories  and  workshops  for  two  additional  hours 
per  day  and  6  hours  per  week  over  and  above  the  time  allowed  by 
article  24,  paragraph  1;  and  one  additional  hour  per  day  and  five 
per  week  above  the  time  prescribed  in  article  25,  paragraph  1  (a). 

To  sum  up — for  I  do  not  wish  to  take  up  too  much  of  the  assem¬ 
bly’s  time — I  should  like  to  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  the  phase 
assumed  by  the  discussion,  our  delegation,  in  order  to  simplify  the 
debate,  will  propose  no  amendment  on  the  subject  of  the  54  hours. 

In  the  second  place,  the  last  stipulation  of  the  draft  of  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee  seems  to  me  too  rigid  when  it  says,  article  11: 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into  force  not  later  than  July 
1, 1921. 

It  was  judged  necessary  in  our  country  at  least  to  have  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  granting  longer  transition  periods.  This  permission  natu¬ 
rally  must  not  be  abused.  It  will  be  restricted  by  agreement 
between  the  workers  and  the  employers  themselves,  and  it  will  be 


an  exception.  It  is  obvious  that  in  those  countries  which  suffered 
directly  from  the  war — ours  suffered  enormously,  but  indirectly — in 
the  destruction  of  their  factories,  etc.,  the  necessity  of  this  privilege 
is  at  least  as  great. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Hear!  hear! 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  That  is  our  motive  in  proposing 
the  following  amendment: 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into  force  not  later  than  January 
1, 1921. 

As  a  transitional  provision  it  shall  be  possible,  until  no  later  than  January  1, 
1924,  by  governmental  regulation,  for  workers  in  certain  branches  of  industry,  or 
workers  employed  under  circumstances  defined  in  this  regulation,  to  work  not 
more  than  10  hours  per  day  or  55  hours  per  week. 

In  the  third  and  last  place,  and  I  will  end  here,  the  conference 
has  before  it  three  drafts.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  discuss  them  in  a  plenary  session  in  a  parliamentary 
manner,  and  that  it  would  be  better  to  put  them  in  the  hands  of  a 
small  committee,  consisting  of  members  of  the  organizing  committee 
and  a  few  members  of  the  workers’  group  and  a  few  from  the  em¬ 
ployers’  group,  who  are  responsible  for  the  concurrent  proposals. 

Thus  there  are,  so  to  speak,  three  courses  toward  the  same  end. 
It  is  the  duty  of  reasonable  people  to  find  the  fair  average. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  In  a  quarter  of  an  hour? 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  The  convention  which  should  be 
the  concrete  result  of  this  conference  may  be  considered  as  a  frame— 
slightly  too  large  in  the  opinion  of  many  of  us,  particularly  because 
it  leaves  room  for  so  many  exceptions,  and  also  because  it  embraces 
industrial  establishments  only — but  at  any  rate  a  frame  beyond  which 
the  States  signatories  may  not  go,  within  the  limits  of  which  their 
labor  legislation  must  be  confined;  a  frame  which  may  be  reduced 
in  size,  if  you  will,  by  subsequent  conferences,  and  within  which 
each  country  may  make  stricter  regulations,  collective  contracts, 
and  national  legislation. 

Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  will  conclude  by  express¬ 
ing  the  wish  of  the  Dutch  people  taking  partin  this  conference,  who 
meet  with  so  many  reminders  of  Holland  in  this  glorious  Republic 
even  in  the  names  of  the  cities  and  towns,  who  boast  that  New  York 
was  once  New  Amsterdam — I  repeat,  I  will  conclude  with  the  wish 
that  the  draft  convention,  amended  and  improved  if  possible,  may 
be  unanimously  accepted.  It  will  be  a  step,  an  important  step, 
toward  the  desired  economic  and  industrial  peace.  It  will  also  be 
a  satisfaction  to  the  authors  of  the  League  of  Nations,  particularly 
to  the  principal  author,  who  is  happily  recovering,  not  far  from  here, 
from  the  results  of  his  almost  superhuman  fatigue.  It  will  be  a 
satisfaction  to  see  the  first  fruit  and  perhaps  the  most  valuable  fruit 
of  one  of  its  organizations,  the  labor  conference,  ripened  and  plucked 
on  American  soil,  in  the  center  of  American  political  life,  the  beau¬ 
tiful  and  spacious  city  which  bears  the  name  of  one  of  the  greatest 
figures  in  human  history.  [Applause.] 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  The  speech  of 
Mr.  Nolens  has  taken  up,  I  am  afraid,  considerably  longer  time  than 
the  conference  expected.  It  is  now  well  on  to  4  o’clock  and  the 
conference  has  a  good  deal  of  business  still  to  do  before  it  adjourns. 
Would  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  conference  if,  without  waiting  for 
the  translation  of  Mr.  Nolens’  speech,  I  now  move  the  termination 
of  the  general  discussion.  Mr.  Nolens’  speech  will  appear  both  in 
French  and  in  English  in  the  printed  proceedings  of  this  conference, 
and  if  the  conference  were  willing  I  should  like  to  move  at  once 
the  termination  of  the  general  discussion,  so  that  we  might  get  on  to 
the  other  business. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Mr.  President - - 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  it  a  point  of  order? 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  going  to  proceed  to  take  the  sense  of 
the  conference  on  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne’s  motion,  but  if  there  is 
any  point  of  order  on  that  motion,  I  will  take  that,  or  one  speech  is 
allowed  against  an  order  for  the  closure.  Consequently,  if  our  friend 
wants  to  speak  to  a  point  of  order,  or  against  an  order,  he  may  do  so. 


INTERNATIONA!  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


71 


Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Gentlemen,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
closing  of  discussion  before  the  workers  have  had  an  opportunity 
to  say  what  they  think,  I  have  called  for  the  floor,  to  speak  against 
the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  President,  like  Dr.  Nolens  and  perhaps  many  others  among 
us,  I  think  we  have  reached  what  is  probably  the  most  critical 
moment  of  the  conference,  and  it  is  at  this  critical  moment  that  we 
must  carefully  define  the  attitude  which  we  are  going  to  take  toward 
one  another  and  also  toward  those  who  have  sent  us  here. 

I  think,  with  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  that  it  is  impossible  to  drag 
this  discussion  on  forever,  and  that  we  must  come  to  a  decision. 
There  are  many  here  who  must  return  to  their  own  countries  in  a  few 
days,  and  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  return  home  before  the  conference 
hasgiven  a  tangible  solution  to  the  draft  which  is  now  on  the  agenda 
of  this  conference. 

Before  defining  the  attitude  of  the  workers,  I  request  your  per¬ 
mission  to  take  up  a  few  points  in  the  speeches  which  were  made 
last  Friday  after  the  very  moderate  statements  of  Mr.  Jouhaux,  who 
was  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  workers. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  a  point  of 
order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  rising  to  a  point  of  order.  The  motion 
before  the  conference  is  the  closure.  One  speech  and  only  one 
speech  is  allowed  against  the  closure,  and  the  speech  ought  to  be 
confined  to  arguments  as  to  why  the  closure  should  or  should  not 
be  ordered,  and  I  am  here  only  temporarily,  in  place  of  the  chair¬ 
man  who  is  unable  to  be  present  to-day,  and  I  hope  the  delegates 
will  not  take  advantage  of  the  fact  of  our  chairman’s  absence. 
I  have  given  you  the  standing  orders  as  far  as  I  understand  them. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man,  I  wish  to  ask  whether  the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne 
against  which  Mr.  Mertens  is  speaking  is  in  order,  in  view  of  article 
11,  the  second  paragraph,  of  the  draft  standing  orders.  The  para¬ 
graph  I  refer  to  reads  as  follows: 

Speeches  in  French  shall  be  summarized  in  English,  and  vice  versa,  by  an  inter¬ 
preter  belonging  to  the  secretariat  of  the  conference. 

“Shall  be.”  I  submit  this  is  a  very  dangerous  proceeding,  to 
pass  any  speaker’s  remarks  without  translating. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  can  scarcely  see  the  relevance  of  Mr. 
Crawford’s  point  of  order.  It  is  quite  true  it  has  been  said,  “Speeches 
in  French  shall  be  summarized  in  English,  and  vice  versa,  by  an 
interpreter  belonging  to  the  secretariat  of  the  conference,”  but  I 
can  scarcely  see  the  relevance  of  that  to  the  motion  now  before  the 
house. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  My  point,  Mr.  Chairman,  was 
that  that  motion  was  not  in  order  until  the  translation  of  Dr.  Nolens’s 
remarks  had  been  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Oh,  I  see.  My  ruling  upon  that  is  that  the 
motion  is  perfectly  in  order.  Under  article  14,  it  reads  as  follows: 

A  delegate  may  at  any  time  move  the  closure  of  the  discussion,  whether  other  del¬ 
egates  have  signified  their  wish  to  speak  or  not.  If  application  is  made  for  permis¬ 
sion  to  speak  against  the  closure,  it  may  only  be  accorded  to  a  single  speaker. 

Therefore,  I  rule  that  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  “may  at 
any  time  move  the  closure”  justifies  Sir  Malcolm  in  moving  the 
closure,  justifies  me  in  taking  it,  and  in  limiting  further  speeches  to 
one  speech  against  the  closure. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Might  I  ask  a  question  on 
your  ruling?  Does  that  mean  the  closure  can  be  moved  in  the 
middle  of  any  speaker’s  remarks;  and  if  your  reply  is  that  it  can 
not  be  moved  in  the  middle  of  a  speech,  then  is  a  speech  concluded 
until  the  translation  is  submitted  to  the  conference? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes.  My  ruling  is  that  the  speech  is 
concluded,  notwithstanding  that  no  interpretation  has  been  given. 
Moreover,  Sir  Malcolm  is  perfectly  in  order  in  moving,  inasmuch  as 
it  states  here  that  “a  delegate  may  at  any  time.  ”  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  he  might  move  it  in  the  middle  of  a  speech,  and  the  chairman 
would  be  quite  justified  in  taking  it. 


Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman,  one  point,  please.  I 
just  wanted  to  remark  briefly,  Mr..  President,  if  I  understand  your 
statement  correctly,  that  it  is  that  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  or  any 
other  delegate  may  move  a  closure  in  the  middle  of  a  speech  or  de¬ 
bate.  Now  I  do  not  follow  that,  because  when  a  delegate  has  the 
floor  you  can  not  recognize  another  delegate  until  he  has  taken  his 
seat,  unless  he  has  moved  for  a  point  of  order. 

We  are  anxious  to  get  down  to  this  matter,  but  I  can  not  follow  your 
ruling  in  that  particular  respect. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  question  has  not  arisen,  Mr.  Draper. 
The  speaker  had  concluded  his  speech  and  thereafter  he  vacated 
the  floor,  and  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  attracted  my  attention. 

Therefore  the  question  as  to  moving  the  closure  in  the  middle  of  a 
speech  has  not  arisen.  I  have  not  ruled  that.  I  gave  it  as  my 
opinion  that  it  might  be  done,  but  the  question  has  not  arisen. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  I  was  saying,  Mr.  President,  that  it 
is  necessary  to  take  up  certain  statements  made  here  by  the 
spokesman  of  the  employers.  It  is  all  the  more  necessary  to  do 
this  now,  since  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  proposes  to  close  the  debate 
without  the  conference  having  had  an  opportunity  to  express  its 
sentiments  on  the  very  principle  of  the  topic  which  is  on  the  agenda. 
For  this  reason  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  oppose  Mr.  Delevingne ’s 
motion.  In  fact,  it  seems  as  if  many  delegates  here  present  do  not 
know  the  reasons  which  bring  us  here,  and  it  seems  that  many  have 
not  read  the  introduction  to  part  13  of  the  peace  treaty,  which 
has  reference  to  the  labor  organization.  I  do  not  wish  to  read  that 
part  here,  but  you  must  understand  that  it  is  necessary,  since  the 
Peace  Conference,  and  the  Supreme  Allied  Council  afterwards,  ren¬ 
dered  decisions  which  have  been  so  often  appealed  to  in  this  very 
assembly,  you  must  understand,  I  say,  that  it  is  necessary  for  us  to 
put  into  execution  the  decisions  of  the  conference  at  Versailles  and 
the  decisions  made  by  the  Supreme  Allied  Council. 

The  PRESIDENT  (interrupting).  Just  a  moment,  please.  While 
I  am  in  this  chair  I  am  going  to  have  matters  conducted  according  to 
the  standing  orders,  if  I  can;  and  if  any  departure  is  to  be  made  from 
the  standing  orders,  then  I  must  have  the  sanction  of  the  conference 
for  it. 

The  standing  order  is  perfectly  explicit.  If  the  closure  is  moved, 
one  speech  and  one  speech  only  is  allowed,  and  that  speech  must  be 
directed  to  the  matter  of  the  closure  and  nothing  else.  Now,  Mr. 
Mertens  is  applying  himself  to  something  quite  aside  from  the  motion 
before  the  meeting,  and  if  that  is  to  be  allowed,  I  will  take  a  vote 
from  the  conference,  aye  or  nay.  The  closure  is  moved.  Shall  we 
suspend  the  closure  until  such  time  as  Mr.  Mertens  makes  his  speech? 
That  is  the  motion  now  before  the  meeting. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  I  shall  close  briefly  and  you  shall 
have  full  and  complete  satisfaction. 

Therefore,  I  invite  the  attention  of  the  assembly  to  the  fact  that 
the  Supreme  Allied  Council  inserted  as  the  first  topic  on  the  agenda 
of  this  conference,  not  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48- 
hour  week,  but  it  set  down  for  the  first  topic  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  ask  for  a  word.  I  ask  whether  it  is 
possible  at  the  present  stage  of  the  discussion  to  vote  on  a  motion  for 
limiting  debate,  on  a  motion  of  closure  of  the  general  discussion, 
which  would  exclude  all  those  who,  their  names  being  on  the  list, 
have  certain  views  to  set  forth  upon  the  ideas  which  were  stated 
previous  to  their  being  interrupted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  I  do  not  want  to  take  a  vote  on  the 
closure  at  all;  I  simply  want  to  put  myself  and  the  conference  in 
order  according  to  our  standing  orders,  to  which  you  have  assented. 
My  duty  here  is  to  keep  the  conference  in  accordance  with  these 
standing  orders.  As  I  have  pointed  out,  the  closure  has  been 
moved;  one  speech  is  allowed  against  the  closure,  and  only  one. 
Mr.  Mertens  now  is  not  speaking  against  the  closure:  but  I  have  no 
feeling  in  the  matter.  If  the  conference  desires  Mr.  Mertens  to  be 
heard,  well  and  good;  I  have  no  objection,  but  let  the  conference 
say  so. 


72 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Would  not  the  conference  de¬ 
cide  whether  Mr.  Mertens  should  speak  on  the  general  question  iD 
voting  on  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne’s  motion,  and  therefore  it  is  not 
in  order  to  speak  on  any  other  proposition  than  that — I  mean,  other 
than  that  Mr.  Mertens  wants  to  speak  on  the  general  question? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  now,  that  may  be  so.  But  you  see  I 
have  to  conduct  the  conference  according  to  standing  orders,  and 
what  I  want  now  to  do  is  to  put  as  simple  a  proposition  as  I  can  to 
the  meeting,  and  the  proposition  is,  Will  Mr.  Mertens  be  heard, 
notwithstanding  that  there  is  a  motion  now  before  the  house?  Will 
you  vote  on  that  now?  Those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Mertens’  being  heard 
please  signify  by  holding  up  one  hand. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Why,  no,  I  am  speaking  on  the 
motion.  I  am  setting  forth  my  reasons  for  being  against  closure. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  in  favor  please  signify  by  holding  up 
one  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  against,  please. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  vote  is  38  in  favor  of  Mr.  Mertens  continuing  his  speech  and 
28  against.  Mr.  Mertens. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  First  of  all  I  want  to  draw  attention, 
Mr.  President,  to  the  fact  that  I  am  speaking  against  the  motion  of 
Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  because  it  does  not  satisfy  me.  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne  proposes  to  close  the  debate  without  our  having  voted  on 
the  principle  of  the  question  itself,  and  that  is  the  reason  for  which 
I  object  to  the  proposed  agenda.  Now  I  shall  continue. 

Mr.  MARJORIB  ANKS  (Great  Britain).  A  point  of  order.  Ought 
we  not,  now  that  it  is  decided  that  Mr.  Mertens  is  to  be  heard,  and 
he  is  going  to  speak  generally  on  the  general  discussion,  to  hear  the 
translation  of  M.  Nolens’  speech? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  afraid  it  has  gone  beyond  that,  Mr. 
Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  For  this  reason,  ladies  and  gentle¬ 
men,  it  is  necessary  to  set  forth  our  point  of  view  and  to  take  up  the 
arguments  presented  here  by  the  employers.  They  tell  us  it  is 
impossible  to  enforce  the  eight-hour  day.  And  just  now  again 
Dr.  Nolens  came  and  told  us  that  in  his  country  social  legislation  is 
so  far  advanced  that  it  even  anticipates  the  proposal  made  by  the 
workers  to  this  conference.  It  gives  me  pleasure,  through  this 
remark  of  Dr.  Nolens,  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  workers  have 
given  a  proof  of  their  confidence  in  the  conference  itself  in  hopes  of 
being  able  to  arrive  at  something  in  the  end. 

Among  the  arguments  which  the  employers  have  called  to  their 
support  are  many  which  have  a  semblance  of  reason,  and  occasion¬ 
ally  some  which  are  justified.  But  they  invoke  in  particular  the 
disasters,  the  ruin,  and  the  devastation  caused  by  the  war.  I  desire 
to  remind  you  in  this  assembly  that  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  workers, 
and  that  the  workers,  who  have  been  organized  for  many  years, 
have  always  struggled  against  the  militarism  which  brought  upon 
us  the  terrible  war  from  which  we  suffered  for  four  years  and  a  half. 
[Applause.  |  I  desire  also  to  point  out  that  several  of  the  leaders  of 
the  trades-union  movements  have  had  to  pay  with  their  liberty  and 
their  life  for  their  struggles  against  militarism. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  We  have,  also. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Years  in  prison,  when  we  were  pro¬ 
testing  against  it. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  They  speak  also  of  the  lack  of  pro¬ 
duction,  etc.  The  workers’  spokesman  pointed  it  out  last  week. 
We,  too,  want  to  increase  production,  and  for  that  reason  we  want 
to  cooperate  with  our  employers  in  order  to  reach  that  state  of 
production  which  is  necessary  to  the  very  life  of  the  human  race. 
And  why?  Because,  otherwise,  we  know  that  we  can  not  attain 
the  goal  which  was  set  for  us  by  the  conference  itself. 

I  venture  to  take  up  a  phrase  uttered  here  by  Mr.  Guerin,  who 
said:  “To  work  and  at  the  same  time  to  limit  ourselves,  that  is  our 
duty.  ”  I  am  agreed,  Mr.  Guerin,  that  we  must  work,  and  I  can  say 
on  behalf  of  the  workers  here  present  that  I  think  we  have  worked 


during  our  lifetime,  and  that  while  several  of  those  who  are  present 
at  this  conference  were  spending  many  years  in  universities  and 
schools,  we  were  in  the  workshop  and  were  already  at  work  on  behalf 
of  all  humanity.  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  among  the  employers 
and  among  those  who  represent  the  Governments  there  are  some  who 
have  had  to  experience  hard  times,  but  their  work  has  allowed  them 
to  live  comfortably  notwithstanding,  while  in  the  working  class, 
whatever  may  be  done,  the  workingman  can  not  make  both  ends 
meet  and  can  not  provide  for  the  needs  of  his  household,  his  wife, 
and  his  children. 

Therefore,  in  affirming  the  necessity  of  working,  Mr.  Guerin 
cited  a  phrase  of  Mr.  Hoover;  I,  too,  desire  to  take  the  liberty  of 
citing  a  phrase  from  the  same  report  of  Mr.  Hoover,  in  which  he 
says  that  more  than  15,000,000  families  in  Europe  receive  unem¬ 
ployment  allowances  from  their  Governments.  Fifteen  million 
families  which  can  not  work,  and  yet  ask  nothing  better  than  to  work 
in  order  to  live  properly!  Then  let  the  Government,  in  accord  with 
employers  and  workers,  do  what  is  necessary  to  give  work  to  these 
workingmen,  who  are  still  without  work  at  present,  and  if  there  are 
any  transformations  to  be  made  such  as  Dr.  Nolens  was  speaking  of 
just  now,  let  them  be  made.  It  is  perhaps  of  interest  to  point  out 
the  fact  that  here  in  the  United  States,  where  the  sale  and  con¬ 
sumption  of  alcoholic  drinks  has  been  suppressed,  in  six  months’ 
time  the  liquor  distilleries  have  been  transformed  so  as  to  manu¬ 
facture  articles  which  are  useful  to  mankind. 

I  will  say  this:  If  we  must  work,  let  us  begin  with  this  transfor¬ 
mation  and  let  all  those  be  set  to  work  who  ask  no  better  than  to 
earn  bread  for  their  children  by  their  productive  labor. 

The  words  “to  limit  ourselves’  ’  have  been  used.  Mr.  Guerin  has 
just  said  that  he  did  not  mean  to  limit  ourselves  in  real  necessities, 
but  in  luxuries.  Agreed,  but  even  in  the  case  of  real  necessities, 
Mr.  Gu6rin,  let  us  take  the  example  of  Belgium,  which  I  know 
particularly  well ;  the  fact  is  established  that  what  we  paid  a  franc 
for  before  the  war  cost  us  3  francs  54  last  July;  thus,  an  increase  of 
2  francs  54.  And  at  the  same  time  we  see  the  terrible  struggle  that 
the  workmen  have  had  to  make;  the  increase  in  wages  has  been  100 
per  cent,  or  at  the  most  150  to  175  per  cent.  Given  the  fact  that 
before  the  war  they  did  not  get  enough  to  live  on  properly,  how 
do  you  expect  them  to  live  properly  now  and  yet  limit  themselves 
still  more  in  the  real  necessities  of  life? 

I  desired  to  point  this  out  to  the  assembly  merely  to  show  that  the 
solution  of  this  problem — the  problem  of  limiting  itself  more  than  it 
has  done  thus  far — is  not  easy  for  the  working  class. 

Now  I  come  to  this  very  important  point  in  the  declarations  of 
the  employers.  I  desire  to  take  up  the  statement  of  Mr.  Parsons, 
and  I  hope  that  he  will  not  be  followed  by  his  colleagues  of  the 
Canadian  Government.  In  fact,  Mr.  Parsons  said:  “We  Canadians 
can  not  sign  this  convention  because  America  has  not  yet  signed 
the  peace  treaty.  ”  I  ask  you  what  is  going  to  happen  to  our  conven¬ 
tion  if  each  member  of  the  League  of  Nations,  each  member  of  the 
International  Labor  Conference,  has  the  right  to  say:  “If  the  de¬ 
cision  which  has  just  been  made  does  not  please  me.  1  shall  not  sup¬ 
port  it,  because  such  and  such  a  country  has  not  yet  enforced  it.  ” 
Thus,  if  we  are  all  to  reason  in  this  way,  we  can  take  our  hats  and  go 
back  to  our  countries,  because  no  cooperation  is  possible  in  this 
conference.  It  is  my  opinion  that  all  those  who  are  affiliated  with 
the  League  of  Nations,  in  their  position  as  members  of  that  league, 
ought  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference,  that  all  countries  should  carry  them  out  faithfully  and 
honestly.  And  I  hope  that  before  the  end  of  the  conference  the 
Canadian  employers  will  speak  differently  from  the  way  in  which 
Mr.  Parsons  spoke  to-day. 

I  think  that  the  time  has  come  to  recall  what  Dr.  Nolens  said  not 
long  ago  and  what  Mr.  Barnes  recalled  in  his  opening  speech  on  the 
question  which  is  included  in  the  peace  treaty,  i.  e.,  the  affirma¬ 
tion  that  labor  is  no  longer  to  be  considered  as  a  mere  commodity, 
but  must  be  considered  as  something  belonging  to  all  mankind. 
Therefore,  once  for  all,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  conference  must 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


73 


sav  to-day  whether  or  not  it  is  agreed  on  the  principle  of  the  8-hour 
day  and  the  48-hour  week;  whether  or  not,  instead  of  debating 
the  principle,  it  desires  to  take  concrete  action,  and  whethei  it 
desires  to  enforce  these  principles  resolutely.  In  my  opinion,  a 
categorical  declaration  is  needed  before  we  can  subscribe  to  the 
closure  of  debate;  the  assembly  must  say  whether  or  not  the 
application  in  practice  of  this  principle  is  to  be  discussed  in  the 
propose!  committee. 

Once  this  principle  has  been  admitted  here,  we  shall  willingly 
subscribe  to  the  proposal  of  the  committee  which  will  have  studied 
the  methods  of  its  enforcement  because  we  do  not  wish  to  be  as 
stubborn  as  all  that.  We  know  that  in  several  countries  it  will  be 
difficult  to  enforce  immediately  what  one  would  like  to  put  into 
effect;  for  that  reason  we  have  asked  that  a  date  be  fixed  at  which 
the  decisions  of  the  present  conference  shall  be  enforced,  even  for 
the  8-hour  day  and  the  English  week,  i  e.,  the  48-hour  week. 

It  is  evident  that  for  the  enforcement  of  this  an  understanding  will 
have  to  be  brought  about  in  each  country  between  Government, 
employers,  and  workers,  in  order  to  come  to  an  agreement,  because 
I  think  that  in  a  conference  like  this  it  is  not  possible  to  promulgate 
legislation  which  shall  be  applicable  to  all  countries  indiscriminately. 
I  say  therefore  thar.  the  only  thing  which  can  not  be  admitted  is  the 
delay  in  the  enforcement  of  this  principle  until  1924,  the  principles 
which  they  would  like  to  have  admitted  to-day.  For  that  reason,  we 
workers  request  today’s  assembly  to  be  clear,  exact,  and  precise, 
and  that  it  declare  itself  in  such  a  way  that  the  workingmen  may 
know  where  they  stand.  Let  us  not  forget,  ladies  and  gentleman,  that 
in  all  civilized  countries  the  workingmen  are  expecting  a  great  deal 
from  this  conference,  in  which  they  have  placed  all  their  hopes. 

They  have  the  conviction  that  their  attitude  during  the  war  and 
since  its  termination  entitles  them  to  different  treatment.  They  de¬ 
sire  to  lay  aside  their  anxiety.  We  are  waiting  for  the  employers’ 
delegates  and  the  Government  delegates  to  permit  the  delegates  here 
present  to  take  a  definite  stand  and  to  find  out  whether  their  pres¬ 
ence  here  is  of  any  use  whatsoever. 

Serious  changes  are  taking  place  among  the  masses,  ladies  and 
gentlemen;  the  entire  mass  is  stirring  and  moving.  Look  at  the 
news  which  comes  to  us  from  Germany,  and  even  France;  look  closer 
at  hand,  round  about  you  here,  at.  what  is  happening  in  this  very 
country,  and  you  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  in  order  to  calm 
the  working  classes  which  are  laboring,  suffering,  and  dying,  we  must 
depart  from  here  with  a  decision  which  will  bring  about  a  reign  of 
tranquillity,  peace,  and  comfort  throughout  the  world. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  I  beg  leave,  Mr.  Chairman,  now 
to  move  the  close  of  the  general  debate.  We  have  heard  the 
employers’  statements  and  we  have  heard  the  statements  of  the 
workers;  and  we  have  heard  statements  made  by  employers’  dele¬ 
gates;  we  have  heard  the  reply  of  Mr.  Mertens;  we  have  also  heard 
statements  of  various  Government  delegates. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Point  of  order? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Yes;  point  of  order.  Is  he 
speaking  in  order,  in  speaking? 

'The  PRESIDENT.  Oh,  quite. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  understood  there  was  only 
one  speech - 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  ruled  the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne 
was  withdrawn,  and  therefore  if  closure  was  to  be  moved,  it  would 
have  to  be  moved  again. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  I  am  only  going  to  say  this,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  I  want  the  interpreter  to  interpret  it  very  carefully. 
I  am  tired  of  listening  to  general  discussions,  and  I  want  some  work 
done. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Closure  is  moved. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Mr.  President - 

The  PRESIDENT.  Do  you  want  to  speak  against  the  closure, 
and  only  that?  You  are  in  order  in  speaking  against  the  closure, 
but  on  nothing  else. 


Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  f  urge  that  we 
do  not  accept  the  proposed  closure.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be 
absolutely  unjust.  A  moment  ago  the  president,  with  the  consent 
of  the  conference,  allowed  Mr.  Mertens  to  speak  not  only  against  the 
motion,  but  even  on  the  subject  under  discussion. 

Mr.  Mertens  was  not  listed  as  a  speaker;  there  are  others  whose 
names  came  before  his.  It  seems  to  me  then  that  it  would  be  unjust, 
since  one  exception  has  already  been  made,  not  to  continue  making 
others.  On  the  other  hand,  although  the  discussion  on  the  8-hour 
day  and  the  48-hour  week  has  already  lasted  several  days,  I  consider 
that  there  are  further  arguments  which  the  conference  has  not  yet 
discussed,  which  may  perhaps  be  the  main  arguments,  and  that  the 
conference  ought  to  hear  them.  In  fact,  it  is  not  so  much  a  question 
of  lessening  the  working  hours,  as  a  moral  question  to  which  the  con¬ 
ference  can  well  give  another  day  for  discussion.  For  these  reasons 
I  urge  the  rejection  of  the  motion  for  closure;  let  the  discussion 
continue  freely. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  now  going  to  take  a  vote,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  on  the  closure,  and  I  would  desire  delegates  to  sit  in 
their  places  so  that  their  votes  may  be  taken  in  an  orderly  manner 
and  so  there  may  be  no  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  tellers  as  to  taking 
votes. 

Now,  the  motion  is  that  the  general  discussion  be  now  terminated. 

Mr.  Carlier,  of  Belgium,  has  suggested  that  I  take  a  record  vote. 
Provision  is  made  for  taking  a  record  vote  only  when  20  delegates 
signify  their  wish  that  it  is  to  be  taken,  and  I  think  it  has  to  be  in 
writing. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  That  is  not  the  only  provision 
made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  What  is  the  other  provision?  I  think  I  shall 
be  voicing  the  sense  of  the  conference  if  I  take  the  vote  by  a  show  of 
hands. 

It  is  true  that  it  states  that  a  record  vote  shall  be  taken  in  all  cases 
where  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  votes  is  required,  or  if  there  is 
any  doubt.  Neither  of  those  conditions  is  present  here.  So  I  think 
I  shall  now  proceed  to  take  a  vote  for  the  closure  and  against  the 
closure. 

Now,  will  all  those  in  favor  of  the  closure  please  signify  it  by  raising 
one  hand. 

[Show  of  hands.] 

Down.  Against  the  closure. 

[Show  of  hands.] 

The  vote  is  64  in  favor  of  the  closure  and  19  against. 

I  therefore  declare  the  closure  carried  and  the  general  discussion 
now  closed. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Rowell,  of  Canada. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Now  that  the  general  discussion  has 
closed,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  conference  to  deal  with  the  actual 
proposals  for  a  convention  on  the  question  of  an  8-hour  day  or 
a  48-hour  week.  The  question  now  'before  us,  and  upon  which  I 
wish  to  make  a  few  observations  to  the  conference,  is  that  of  pro¬ 
cedure.  How  can  we  proceed  in  the  most  satisfactory  way  to  reach 
an  intelligent  conclusion  on  the  important  matters  now  before  us? 
There  are  two  possible  methods  of  procedure.  We  might  take  up  the 
convention,  clause  by  clause,  and  consider  the  amendments  proposed 
by  the  employers  on  the  one  hand  and  by  the  employees  on  the 
other - 

The  PRESIDENT.  Might  I  interrupt  you  a  moment,  Mr. 
Rowell?  A  motion  is  now  on  the  order  paper  in  the  name  of  Mr. 
Jouhaux.  If  you  are-now  going  to  move  something  with  reference 
to  procedure,  you  are  in  order.  I  wish  you  would  just  state  that  fact. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Perhaps  the  chairman  overlooked  it, 
but  I  stated  it  was  a  question  of  procedure. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Oh,  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  And  that  is  the  nature  of  the  motion  I 
desire  to  submit  to  the  conference.  I  was  just  pointing  out  tnat 
there  were  two  methods  of  procedure,  either  to  endeavor  to  consider 


74 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


all  these  amendments  here  in  the  open  conference  or  for  the  con¬ 
ference  to  name  a  commission  to  which  might  be  referred  the  draft 
convention  and  all  the  amendments  proposed  both  by  employers 
and  employees  and  by  any  Governments  that  have  made  specific 
suggestions.  The  motion  I  desire  to  submit  to  the  conference  is 
that  we  should  adopt  the  latter  of  the  two  courses  suggested,  and 
I  shall  read  the  motion,  which  is  to  be  seconded  by  M.  Fontaine,  and 
then  I  shall  give  a  few  reasons  why  I  think  the  conference  should 
adopt  the  procedure  suggested. 

The  motion  which  I  propose  is  as  follows: 

Resolved ,  That  the  draft  convention  and  the  proposed  amendments  submitted  by 
the  employers,  employees,  and  Governments  be  referred  to  a  commission,  to  be  ap¬ 
pointed,  for  consideration  and  report. 

Mr.  President,  in  support  of  the  proposed  resolution  I  desire  to 
give  two  or  three  reasons.  I  am  sure  the  members  of  this  conference, 
no  matter  whether  they  represent  Government,  employers,  or  em¬ 
ployees  are  sincerely  desirous  of  securing  a  real  practical  result  from 
the  deliberations  of  this  conference.  I  agree  with  what  has  been 
said,  that  if  this  conference  should  fail  to  take  any  real  step  in 
advance  which  would  indicate  to  the  industrial  workers  in  the  dif¬ 
ferent  industrial  countries  in  the  world  that  this  conference  was  not 
going  to  live  up  to  the  spirit  of  the  peace  treaty,  you  would  create 
discouragement  among  the  workers  of  the  world  in  all  industrial 
countries.  On  the  other  hand,  if  this  conference  should  adopt  a 
line  of  action  which  the  employers  of  the  industrial  countries  gen¬ 
erally  would  feel  would  put  them  in  such  a  position  that  they  could 
not  satisfactorily  continue  their  business  operations,  I  fear  we  could 
not  secure  the  adoption  of  the  convention  by  the  different  nations 
even  after  this  conference  passed  it.  Therefore  I  submit,  Mr. 
President,  that  the  object  of  the  conference  should  be  to  seek  to 
secure  a  convention  which  would  seek  to  do  reasonable  justice  to 
both  employees  and  employers;  to  seek  to  secure  a  convention  which 
would  carry  by  the  necessary  two-thirds  vote,  which  it  must  receive 
before  it  is  sanctioned  by  this  conference,  when  it  is  put  in  final 
form;  to  secure  the  adoption  of  a  convention  which,  when  sanctioned 
by  the  conference  and  transmitted  to  the  respective  Governments, 
might  secure  the  adherence  of  these  Governments. 

For  what  we  desire  here  is  not  so  much  the  expression  of  certain 
ideals  or  certain  hopes,  important  as  these  ideals  and  hopes  are, 
but  what  we  desire  to  secure  here  is  an  actual  convention,  an  actual 
agreement,  which  will  be  ratified  by  the  necessary  vote  of  the 
conference,  and  which  will  be  adopted  by  the  industrial  nations  of 
the  world,  members  of  the  conference,  when  remitted  to  them  for 
action.  Therefore,  in  deciding  on  our  procedure,  we  should  always 
have  in  view  the  object  we  are  seeking  to  attain. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we,  I  am  sure,  all  keep  in  view  the  fact  that 
whereas  we  have  had  the  views  presented  from  the  standpoint  of 
employers  and  employees,  the  Governments  in  question  represent 
the  whole  people  and  they  must  consider  the  matter  in  its  social 
aspects  as  well.  I  do  not  think  the  Governments  should  use  their 
power  in  this  conference  to  give  a  decision  in  favor  of  one  side  or 
the  other,  unless  all  efforts  at  reaching  common  ground  after  a 
frank  discussion  in  the  commission  should  be  without  avail. 

I  have  confidence,  Mr.  President,  that  if  employers  and  employees 
and  representatives  of  the  Governments,  a  limited  number,  were  to 
get  together  on  a  commission,  seated  around  a  table,  with  this  draft 
convention  before  them  and  with  the  amendments  proposed  by  each 
side,  and  were  to  seek  to  work  out  a  reasonable,  workable  convention, 
they  would  succeed  in  doing  so.  They  must  succeed  in  doing  so. 

We  must  not  permit  this  conference  to  be  a  failure.  We  must 
recognize  that  we  can  not  go  back  to  the  old  conditions  that  existed 
before  the  war.  We  must  recognize  that,  important  as  production 
is — and  I  do  not  think  too  much  has  been  said  about  the  importance 
of  production,  and  I  do  not  think  too  much  has  been  said  about 
thrift  and  economy — we  will  not  secure  the  maximum  of  production 
nor  will  we  secure  the  economic  results  which  we  all  desire  to  see, 
unless  the  worker?  in  all  our  countries  feel  that  justice  has  been 


done  them  and  that  they  are  starting  out  in  a  newer  and  better 
era  in  connection  with  the  world’s  progress.  [Applause.] 

And  as  I  believe,  Mr.  President,  that  that  is  the  desire  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  this  conference,  I  believe  if  they  get  together  in  that  spirit  in 
a  commission,  meet  each  other  face  to  face  and  frankly  talk  this  mat¬ 
ter  out,  they  will  be  able  to  reach  a  conclusion  which  will  make  this 
conference  mark  a  new  era,  not  only  in  industrial  relations  in  the 
different  nations  of  the  world,  but  a  new  era  for  the  toiling  masses  in 
all  the  countries  of  the  world. 

Therefore,  Mr.  President,  I  beg  to  move  the  resolution  which  has 
already  been  read  and  commend  it  to  the  sympathetic  consideration 
of  the  conference.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  If  I  support  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Rowell  to  refer  the  continuance  of  the  debate  to  a  commission,  it  is 
because  I  think  that  the  principle  itself  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the 
48-hour  week  is  absolutely  gained  and  therefore  beside  the  question. 
[Applause.]  The  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week 
is  in  the  peace  treaty;  most  of  the  countries  of  Europe  have  incor¬ 
porated  it  into  their  legislation,  the  French  Government  has  done 
this  and  has  enforced  it  throughout  its  territory,  it  intends  to  stand 
by  it,  and  it  is  my  mission  to  defend  the  principle  of  the  law  which 
the  French  Government  has  put  through  and  has  enforced. 

But,  this  being  said,  and  the  principle  being  beside  the  question — 
and  I  think  that  Mr.  Rowell’s  intention,  like  mine,  if  I  may  judge 
by  the  discussions  which  took  place  this  morning  within  the  group 
of  Government  delegates,  is  not  in  the  least  to  dismiss  the  principle 
in  question — the  principle  being  beside  the  question,  there  are 
many  problems  of  enforcement.  It  is  these  questions  of  enforce¬ 
ment  that  the  Supreme  Council  has  placed  on  the  agenda  of  our 
conference:  In  what  kinds  of  work  is  the  8-hour  day  to  be  enforced? 
Under  what  conditions  can  the  English  week  be  established,  i.  e., 
the  48-hour  week?  What  exceptions  are  authorized,  and  under 
what  conditions?  There  are  a  great  many  amendments  on  all  these 
points.  All  these  amendments,  these  methods,  would  be  referred 
to  the  commission.  The  commission,  I  should  think,  might  be 
appointed  at  once,  if  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  conference  that  questions 
relating  to  the  enforcement  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week 
should  be  referred  to  a  commission. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  The  employers  are  agreed  upon  accept¬ 
ing  the  principle  of  the  appointment  of  a  commission,  as  has  just 
been  proposed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Baldesi. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian): 

After  the  reception  given  to  the  remarks  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  I  might 
have  given  up  the  floor,  but  I  -wish  still  to  point  out  that  I  do 
not  consider  it  the  fact  that  the  8-hour  law  is  accepted  in  a  number 
of  countries  by  their  legislation  sufficient  for  the  passing  over  the 
matter  of  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week.  I 
think  the  question  of  the  application  of  the  measures  and  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  amendments  should  not  be  referred  to  a  commission 
until  this  body,  after  hearing  this  three  days’  debate  on  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  8-hour  day,  expresses  itself  by  vote  on  the  question  of  the 
limitation  of  hours  to  an  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week. 

Think  what  would  happen  if,  in  the  committee,  they  were  to 
divide  in  opinion  on  this  question  and  come  back  with  a  ma¬ 
jority  and  a  minority  report  on  this  point.  It  would  mean  that 
after  closing  this  general  debate  at  the  end  of  three  days’  discussion 
the  whole  question  would  be  opened  again. 

To  avoid  the  possibility  of  such  a  reopening  of  the  discussion 
I  submit  the  following  motion: 

That  the  conference  declares  that  the  maximum  length  of  the  working  day  for 
industrial  occupations  shall  be  8  hours  and  the  week  48  hours,  and  proceeds  to 
appoint  a  commission  of  nine  members  to  study  the  details  of  its  application  on 
the  basis  of  the  draft  submitted  by  the  organizing  committee  and  of  the  several 
amendments  offered  thereto. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


75 


The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  an  amendment  to  Mr.  Rowell’s 
motion  which  reads: 

That  the  conference  declares  that  the  maximum  length  of  the  working  day  for  indus¬ 
trial  occupations  shall  be  8  hours  and  the  week  1 8hours  and  proceeds  toappoint  a  com¬ 
mission  of  nine  members  to  study  the  details  oi  its  application  cn  the  basis  of  the  draft 
submitted  by  the  organizing  committee  and  of  the  amendments  offered  thereto. 

That  is  an  amendment.  Will  anyone  second  it? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  should  like 
to  second  the  amendment  if  the  mover  would  make  a  slight  altera¬ 
tion,  which  I  think  would  facilitate  business.  I  should  like  him  to 
delete  the  word  “declares”  and  substitute  “proceeds  to  discuss.” 
My  suggestion  would  enable  the  conference  to  proceed  on  a  discus¬ 
sion  of  a  resolution  on  the  question  of  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour 
week,  and  would  at  the  same  time  permit  the  commission  to  proceed 
with  its  work.  Otherwise,  the  amendment  may  be  defeated  for  the 
reason  that  a  discussion  of  the  amendment  would  involve  a  long  and 
protracted  discussion  on  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  and  48- 
hour  week. 

I  should  like  to  ask  Mr.  Baldesi  if  he  would  make  that  alteration 
to  his  amendment,  to  enable  me  to  second  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  want  Mr.  Baldesi's  attention,  please.  As 
I  understand  Mr.  Crawford — — 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — interrupting,  in  Italian).  I  do  not  accept 
the  modification  proposed  by  Mr.  Crawford. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Do  I  understand  Mr.  Baldesi  is  opposed  to 
Mr.  Crawford’s  suggestion? 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy— in  Italian):  Ye3. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  that  settles  it.  And  moreover,  I  rather 
think  Mr.  Crawford’s  motion  would  be  out  of  order  anyway, 
because  it  is  really  harking  back  to  the  discussion  which  we  have 
just  closed.  Mr.  Crawford  says,  “the  conference  proceeds  to  a  dis¬ 
cussion  that  the  maximum  length  of  the  working  day  for  industrial 
occupations  shall  be  8  hours  and  the  week  48  hours.”  Subject  to 
anything  Mr.  Crawford  may  have  to  say,  it  seems  to  me  that  is  just 
what  we  have  been  discussing  since  last  Tuesday.  However.  I  will 
take  a  vote  now  on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Baldesi,  as  against  the 
proposition  of  Mr.  Rowell. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President, 
may  I  point  out  that  there  is  a  real  difficulty  here  to  which  Mr. 
Crawford  has  called  attention.  Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion  combines  a 
resolution  on  a  question  ol  substance  with  a  resolution  on  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  procedure.  We  had  been  discussing  on  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion 
the  question  of  our  procedure.  Mr.  Baldesi  has  proposed  two  things 
in  one  resolution  First,  that  we  decide  to  accept  here  and  now 
the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  as  well  as  the  48-hour  week,  and 
that  having  decided  that  we  proceed  to  appoint  a  commission.  It 
is  impossible  to  take  a  vote  at  once  on  that  motion  without  discus¬ 
sion.  The  question  of  the  8-hour  day  has  not  yet  been  fully  dis¬ 
cussed,  and  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion  was  that  it  should  be  referred  for 
consideration  to  a  commission.  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Crawford’s  mo¬ 
tion  does  put  Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion  in  order.  It  does  make  the  whole 
motion  one  of  procedure  only,  and  that  it  leaves  to  the  conference, 
if  the  conference  accepts  that  amended  motion,  the  opportunity  of 
discussing  the  question  of  the  8-hour  day.  It  seems  to  me  quite 
impossible  to  vote  on  Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion  as  it  stands. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  In  my  speech,  which  was  not  trans¬ 
lated  into  English,  I  said  that  I  was  convinced  that  at  this  phase  of  our 
discussions  the  best  method  of  procedure  would  be  to  have  a  small 
commission  of  intelligent  men  from  the  different  countries,  inasmuch 
as  we  have  three  drafts  of  the  law  with  another  amendment.  Well, 
my  idea  was  to  submit  also  to  this  commission  the  first  question, 
the  principal  question  if  I  may  say  so,  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48- 
hour  week  alone. 

I  think  that  is  the  principal  point  for  this  commission,  because 
it  will  include  members  of  the  organizing  committee  who  are  chiefly 
Government  representatives;  there  will  also  be  workers’  representa¬ 
tives  and  others.  In  such  wise  this  question  can  be  freely  discussed, 
and  afterwards  we  shall  come  here  before  the  conference  with  a  draft 


which  it  will  be  possible  to  alter;  but  in  any  case  the  members  of 
the  conference  will  of  course  always  have  sovereign  rights  over  the 
decisions  of  the  commissions.  They  will  say  whether  or  not  they 
agree  with  the  proposals  of  these  commissions.  But  it  seems  to  me 
perfectly  useless  for  the  time  being  to  continue  the  discussion  on 
the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week,  or  the  48-hour  week  only;  or 
to  decide  the  matter  at  this  time,  in  view  of  the  frequent  sessions 
held  by  the  workers  ’  representatives  and  the  no  less  frequent  sessions 
held  by  the  employers’  representatives,  because  there  are  differences 
between  them  which  will  perhaps  depend  on  chance  and  which 
may  be  accepted  by  a  three-quarter  majority ;  I  think  it  much  better, 
if  such  a  commission  is  to  be  trusted,  to  leave  this  point  provisionally 
for  the  study  and  judgment  of  said  commission. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Monseignor,  for  once  we  agree. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  It  is  your  fault  if  that  does  not 
happen  more  often. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  But  you  started  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  may  I  take  a  vote,  please? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  if  Mr.  Baldesi 
has  not  accepted  my  suggested  modification,  I  would  like  to  know  if 
his  motion  is  in  order.  If  it  is  in  order  I  would  like  to  make  a  further 
amendment;  if  it  is  not  in  order  I  would  like  to  move  an  amendment 
on  the  lines  of  my  suggested  modification. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  I  rule  it  is  in  order,  Mr.  Crawford, 
and  after  a  vote  has  been  taken  upon  ;t,  of  course,  the  motion,  if 
carried,  will  be  subject  to  further  amendment 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mav  I  draw  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  procedure  of  the  previous  chairman  was  somewhat 
different,  but  as  long  as  there  is  an  opportunity  of  moving  an  amend¬ 
ment,  I  am  quite  satisfied. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  take  a  vote  on  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amend¬ 
ment?  The  vote  will  be  taken  upon  that  as  against  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Rowell,  and  then  I  will  take  a  vote  on  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion 
afterwards. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  I  ask  to  explain  my  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  have  net  yet  taken  a  vote. 

The  Cleek.  The  proposal  now  to  be  voted  on  is  as  follows- 

That  the  conference  declares  that  the  maximum  length  of  the  working  day  for  in¬ 
dustrial  occupations  shall  be  8  hours  and  the  week  48  hours,  and  proceeds  to  appoint 
a  commission  of  nine  members  to  study  the  details  of  its  application  on  the  basis 
of  the  draft  submitted  by  the  organizing  committee  and  of  the  amendments  offered 
thereto. 

This  motion  is  offered  as  an  amendment  to  the  motion  proposed 
by  Mr  Rowell. 

THE  PRESIDENT.  Now,  in  votins  for  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amend¬ 
ment  you  will  be  voting  against  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion.  Please  keep 
that  in  mind.  All  in  favor  of  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment - 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian):  I  do  not  intend  my 
motion  to  be  in  opposition  to  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Rowell. 

The  only  purpose  of  my  motion  is,  before  voting  on  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Rowell  for  a  committee,  to  have  this  assembly  express 
by  a  vote  its  approval  of  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the 
48-hour  week. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  only  want  the  conference  to  be  clear  on 
what  it  is  voting  before  it  votes.  To  my  mind  if  you  vote  for  Mr. 
Baldesi’s  motion  you  are  voting  for  it  as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Rowell’s 
motion.  That  is  as  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  I  would  ask  that  the  vote  first  be 
taken  on  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  have  one 
point  cleared  up  before  the  vote  is  taken.  Will  the  rejection  of  the 
Baldesi  amendment  be  construed  as  a  vote  against  the  principle  of 
the  8-hour  day?  I  want  that  clear. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Certainly  not.  Let  me  give  my  opinion. 
My  opinion  is  that  the  difference  between  Mr.  Baldesi  and  Mr. 
Rowell  is  this,  and  it  is  very  simple:  If  you  adopt  Mr.  Baldesi’s 
motion  you  commit  yourselves  to  an  8-hour  day  and  a  48-hour  week. 


76 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


That  is  to  say,  you  tie  the  hands  of  the  committee  to  which  this 
matter  is  to  be  referred. 

In  that  sense,  Mr.  Baldesi  revised  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion,  which  is 
upon  the  paper,  and  which  I  understood  was  to  be  withdrawn  in 
favor  of  Mr.  Rowell.  That  is  the  proposition  as  I  understand  it. 

Might  we  have  a  vote  on  Mr.  Baldesi ’s  amendment?  Then,  if  that 
is  lost  the  motion  of  Mr.  Rowell  will  still  be  before  the  meeting  and 
still  be  subject  to  further  amendment  if  there  are  any  amendments. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  ask  for  the  floor.  I  ask  whether  by 
voting  your  proposed  amendment  it  will  prejudice  the  discussion  to 
follow - 

Several  Delegates.  No!  No!  No! 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France — Continuing).  There  is  no  necessity 
for  any  surprises  here. 

Several  Delegates.  Hear!  Hear! 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  We  are  voting  on  an  amendment  which 
does  not  in  any  way  exclude  the  amendments  which  have  been  laid  be¬ 
fore  us.  This  is  clearly  understood.  It  is  not  a  question  at  the  pres¬ 
ent  time  of  deciding  whether  we  are  going  to  pronounce  on  the  8-hour 
day  or  the  48-hour  week.  That  is  not  the  question  before  us.  This 
amendment  can  not  prejudice  future  discussions. 

Several  Delegates.  Hear!  Hear! 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  In  that  case  the  Baldesi  amendment  has 
no  sense. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  conference  ready  to  vote?  It  seems 
to  me  we  are  not  getting  anywhere.  Mr.  Fontaine,  have  you  any- 
•  thing  germane  to  say? 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  wanted  to  say,  I  have  just  said 
that,  in  supporting  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion,  I  think  it  best  to  leave  in 
the  discussion  the  whole  question  of  the  distribution  of  horns  in  the 
week.  I  have  felt  also  that  the  principle  laid  down  by  the  peace 
conference  was  to-day  beside  the  point.  I  agree  with  Mr.  Jouhaux 
on  the  interpretation  to  be  given  to  the  proposal  which  has  been 
made.  All  amendments  shall  be  put  in  the  hands  of  the  commis¬ 
sion.  There  has  never  been  any  question  of  excluding  any 
amendments. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Then  we  are  not  to  vote  on  the  Baldesi 
amendment  and  put  it  in  the  hands  of  a  commission  as  we  do  with 
the  others? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  may  I  ask  the  mover 
of  the  motion  to  simply  confirm  what  you  said— a  voting  down  of 
Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment  does  not  prejudice  the  situation  at  all? 
My  motion  is  that  everything  before  the  conference — all  the  amend¬ 
ments — should  go  to  the  committee.  One  of  those  amendments  is 
that  moved  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  on  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week. 
That  will  go  to  the  committee  with  the  rest.  It  is  a  question  of 
procedure,  and  1  may  say  this,  the  motion  I  made  was  with  the  ap¬ 
proval  of  the  Government  delegates,  because  we  felt  that  this  method 
of  procedure  was  the  most  likely  to  reach  satisfactory  results. 

Mr.  DI  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy— remarks  in  Italian): 

I  shall  vote  against  the  motion  offered  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  not  be¬ 
cause  1  am  opposed  to  the  principle  that  it  states,  but  because  I 
consider  that  the  time  has  not  come  for  bringing  the  matter  up. 

The  question  raised  by  Mr.  Baldesi  is  one  of  those  that  will  be 
referred  to  the  commission  and  will  come  back  with  the  report  of 
the  commission  before  this  assembly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now  shall  we  have  a  vote  for  or  against  Mr. 
Baldesi’s  amendment?  Then  if  you  dispose  of  that  amendment 
by  defeating  it,  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion  will  still  remain. 

All  in  favor  of  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment,  please  raise  their  right 
hands. 

[Votes  counted .] 

Now,  down,  please.  Against  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment. 

|  Votes  counted.] 

The  figures  are  57  against  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment  and  16  for. 
Therefore,  the  amendment  is  defeated,  and  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion  now 
holds  the  field.  There  are  no  other  amendments,  are  there? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to  move 
an  amendment,  but  I  hope  that  Mr.  Rowell  will  see  fit  to  accept  this 


amendment  and  embody  it  in  his  motion,  because  I  think  it  will 
have  the  object  that  he  seeks  to  attain,  that  is,  the  facilitation  of  thr. 
business  of  the  conference. 

I  beg  to  move  an  amendment,  that  the  following  words  precede 
Mr.  Rowell’s  motion:  “That  the  conference  proceeds  to  discuss  the 
motion  of  which  notice  has  been  given  by  Mr.  Jouhaux,  and  that, 
etc.,”  according  to  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion.  It  seems  to  me,  if  Mr. 
Baldesi’s  amendment  had  been  carried  it  would  have  involved  a 
long  discussion  before  anything  could  have  been  referred  to  a  com¬ 
mission;  but  if  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion  is  carried  it  will  stop  the  work 
of  this  conference  as  a  conference - 

[Cries  of  No!  No!] 

Well,  as  far  as  the  eight-hour  day  is  concerned,  if  the  same  pro¬ 
tracted  discussion  proceeds  with  the  committee  as  is  likely  to  pro¬ 
ceed  with  the  general  conference,  it  may  be  quite  a  long  time  before 
the  committee  is  in  a  position  to  report.  Now,  there  is  no  advantage 
whatever  to  be  gained  by  referring  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  to  a  commit¬ 
tee,  because  no  committee,  no  matter  what  conclusions  it  arrives  at, 
can  cut  out  a  discussion  on  such  clear-cut  issues  as  the  48-hour  week 
and  the  8-hour  day  questions,  as  to  whether  the  commercial  undertak¬ 
ings  shall  be  added  to  those  of  industrial  undertakings,  and  I  think  a 
good  deal  of  time  would  be  saved  and  business  facilitated  if  this 
committee  dealt  exclusively  with  the  other  amendments  and  left 
such  issues  as  that  embodied  in  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  to  be  dealt 
with  by  the  conference. 

They  are  clear-cut  issues,  and  I  can  not  imagine  that  any  committee 
will  be  in  a  position,  no  matter  how  much  consideration  it  gives  to 
those  two  fundamental  points — I  can  not  imagine  a  committee  being 
in  a  position  to  save  discussion  on  these  points  before  the  general 
conference,  and  therefore  I  consider  it  would  be  the  wisest  thing  to 
proceed  with  the  discussion  of  those  two  points  and  allow  the  com¬ 
mittee  to  do  the  rest.  Besides,  the  mover  of  the  motion,  Mr.  Rowell, 
stated  that  it  was  not  to  decide  this  principle  that  he  proposed  the 
appointment  of  a  committee,  but  rather  to  decide  ways  and  means 
of  getting  a  convention  that  would  be  generally  acceptable  and  of 
facilitating  or  evolving  such  an  amended  proposal  as  would  be  capa¬ 
ble  of  application  to  the  respective  countries.  It  is  very  largely  a 
question  of  application.-  Therefore,  since  this  is  a  question  of  princi¬ 
ple  and  a  clear-cut  issue  on  both  points,  that  will  involve  a  discussion 
that  no  committee  can  obviate  in  any  way,  I  would  suggest  that  we 
proceed  with  the  discussion  of  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  and  refer  all  of 
the  matters  to  a  committee.  I  do  not  wish  to  put  my  motion  as  an 
amendment  against  that  of  Mr.  Rowell,  but  I  think  Mr.  Rowell  ought 
to  include  that  in  his  motion  and  thereby  meet  the  views  of  the  labor 
representatives  at  this  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is  that  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion 
should  be  prefaced  by  the  following  words:  “That  the  conference 
proceeds  to  discuss  the  motion  of  which  notice  has  been  given  by 
Mr.  Jouhaux.”  These  are  the  words  proposed  by  Mr.  Crawford  as 
a  preface  to  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion.  That  would  have  the  effect  of 
taking  the  question  of  the  notice  of  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  out  of  the 
category  of  things  to  be  discussed  by  the  committee. 

Are  you  prepared  to  vote  on  that,  for  or  against? 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  May  we  have  the  exact  translation  of 
Mr.  Crawford’s  motion,  the  exact  wording  of  it  in  French0 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  have  only  one  word  to 
say,  and  that  is  that  I  can  not  accept  the  amendment  proposed,  for 
the  very  good  reason  that  I  have  already  explained  to  the  conference 
that  I  believe  it  is  in  the  interests  of  securing  a  satisfactory  conven¬ 
tion  that  all  these  amendments  and  motions  should  go  to  the  commit¬ 
tee.  Let  the  committee  consider  them  all  and  then  report  back  to  us. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  shall  we  have  a  vote  for  or  against  Mr. 
Crawford’s  amendment?  If  that  is  disposed  of,  as  was  Mr.  Baldesi’s 
motion,  then  Mr.  Rowell  still  holds  the  field. 

Those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Crawford’s  amendment,  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Against  Mr.  Crawford’s  amendment. 

[Votes  counted.] 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


77 


I  have  to  declare  that  Mr.  Crawford’s  amendment  is  defeated,  and 
Mr.  Rowell’s  motion  now  holds  the  field.  Shall  we  have  a  vote  on  it? 

Resolved,  That  the  draft  convention  and  the  proposed  amendments  submitted  by 
the  employers, employees,  and  Governments  be  referred  to  a  commission, to  be  ap¬ 
pointed,  for  consideration  and  report. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (Sou  h  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  might  I  ask  a 
question  before  the  motion  is  put? 

I  wish  to  ask  a  question.  I  wish  to  ask  if  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
mover  of  this  resolution  that  amendments  from  individual  delegates 
should  be  considered  by  the  committee? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Certainly. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  am  satisfied. 

The  PRESIDENT.  For  or  against  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion.  All 
those  in  favor.  Those  opposed. 

The  figures  are  66  in  favor  and  none  against.  Therefore  I  have  to 
declare  Mr.  Rowell’s  motion  carried  unanimously. 

Might  I  now  suggest,  in  order  that  we  may  make  full  use  of  the 
remaining  time,  that  each  of  the  sections  should  at  once  appoint 
their  delegates  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  I  suggest  15  delegates,  5  from  each  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  we  vote  on  that?  Five  from  each 
section.  All  those  in  favor  please  signify. 

Down,  please.  Any  against?  It  is  carried  unanimously. 

Mr.  Butler  has  arranged  three  separate  rooms,  for  each  section  to 
meet  separately  if  they  are  so  disposed,  at  once,  so  as  to  get  this 
committee  started. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  Government  delegates 
remain  in  this  room;  the  workers’  delegates  in  the  Columbus  room; 
and  the  employers’  delegates  immediately  below  here  in  the  map 
room,  which  the  director  has  very  kindly  put  at  our  disposal  for  this 
purpose. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Just  one  moment,  gentlemen.  Let  us  under¬ 
stand.  Shall  we  resume  the  conference  after  you  have  made  your 
selections,  because  we  have  got  to  resume  then  or  discuss  now  when 
we  will  meet  again.  Shall  we  say  meet  again  at  6  o’clock  or  shall 
we  say  meet  again  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour? 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  I  propose  10  minutes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Make  it  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  Is  that  the 
sense  of  the  meeting,  that  We  resume  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour? 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  move  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  do  now 
adjourn  to  meet  to-morrow  at  2.30  o’clock. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  a  wish  not  to  meet  to-morrow  on 
account  of  its  being  armistice  day,  Mr.  Draper.  That  is  why  we 
want  to  get  it  settled  to-night.  We  will  meet  again  in  a  quarter  of 
an  hour. 

[Whereupon,  at  5.50  o’clock  p.  m.,  a  recess  of  15  minutes  was 

taken.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  group  of  Government  delegates  has 
named  the  following  members:  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  Mr.  Barnes 
(Great  Britain),  Mr.  Robertson  (Canada),  Dr.  Nolens  (Netherlands), 
Mr.  Mahaim  (Belgium). 

The  employers  ’  group  has  named  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain), 
Mr.  Gu6rin  (France),  Mr.  Carlier  (Belgium),  Mr.  Schindler  (Switzer¬ 
land),  Mr.  Parsons  (Canada). 

The  workers ’  group  has  named  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  Mr.  Mertens 
(Belgium),  Mr.  Oudegeest  (Netherlands),  Mr.  Shaw  (Great  Britain), 
Mr.  Draper  (Canada). 

To-morrow  being  the  anniversary  of  the  armistice,  I  presume  that 
there  will  be  no  meeting  of  the  conference,  The  committees  named 
will  meet  to-morrow  afternoon 

Mr.  GLERIN  (France).  At  what  hour? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  committee  will  meet  at  the  Navy 
Building  at  half  past  2  to-morrow.  And  the  conference — when  shall 
we  adjourn  to? 


Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Wednesday  at  2.30. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  proposed  by  Mr.  Rowell  that  the  con¬ 
ference  resume  on  Wednesday  afternoon  at  half  past  2.  Is  that 
agreed?  It  is  agreed;  at  half  past  2  on  Wednesday  afternoon  we 
resume. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.50  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to  Wednes¬ 
day,  November  12,  1919.  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  F.spil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

•  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Manizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

C-zecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adoifo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Luis  Marino  Perez  (substitutefor 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz). 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  Tom  Shaw  (substitute  for  Mr 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  1  atour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 


Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Vgrkade. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Mr.  V.  Gonzales. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Franz. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg.) 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hialmar  von  Sydow. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Riifenaeht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


78 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


ELEVENTH  SESSION— WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER  12,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.40  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B. 
Wilson,  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  read  correspondence  and 
make  announcements,  if  any. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  received  a  letter  from 
Mrs.  McCormick,  saying  that  she  is  very  sorry  that  she  is  unable  to 
hold  the  reception  to  which  she  had  invited  the  members  of  the 
conference,  on  Saturday.  She  is  recovering  from  a  serious  illness, 
and  the  fatigue  resulting  from  the  preparations  for  the  reception 
has  caused  a  slight  relapse,  and  the  doctor  has  ordered  her  to  abandon 
the  reception.  She  wishes  to  express  her  deep  regret  to  the  con¬ 
ference  and  hopes  that  she  and  Senator  McCormick  may  have  other 
opportunities  for  meeting  the  members  of  the  conference. 

I  should  just  like  to  announce  that  I  now  have  as  many  copies  of 
the  reports  of  the  organizing  committee,  both  in  English  and  French, 
as  may  be  required.  If  any  delegate  wishes  more  copies,  if  he 
will  apply  at  the  bureau  of  information  they  will  be  supplied  to  him. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  order  of  business  is  the  report  of  the 
committee  on  applications  for  admission.  The  Chair  recognizes  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  for  the  presentation  of  the  report,  Mr. 
Rowell,  of  Canada. 

0 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  the  members  of  the 
conference  now  have  before  them  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
applications  for  admission,  and  this  report  sets  out  at  some  length 
the  applications  which  came  before  the  committee  and  the  manner 
in  which  the  committee  proposes  the  conference  shall  deal  with 
them.  The  reference  to  the  committee  was  in  the  following  terms: 
“  To  consider  and  report  upon  the  question  of  admitting  Finland, 
Luxemburg,  the  Dominican  Republic,  and  any  other  applications 
for  admission  which  may  be  received  during  the  present  conference; 
and  further,  that  the  resolution  standing  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Rafael 
H.  Elizalde,  of  Ecuador,  be  referred  to  the  committee.”  The  com¬ 
mittee  found  itself  unable  to  agree  unanimously  on  the  question 
of  the  admission  of  Finland  because  of  a  difference  of  opinion  as 
to  the  proper  construction  to  be  placed  upon  the  article  of  the  treaty 
relating  to  membership  in  this  International  Labor  Organization. 
The  majority  report  in  reference  to  Finland  will  therefore  be  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  conference  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  who  was  appointed  to 
speak  for  the  majority  on  that  question.  After  he  has  presented 
the  majority  report  on  that  matter,  I  shall  submit  the  minority 
report  on  the  same  question. 

In  reference,  however,  to  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Luxem¬ 
burg,  the  Dominican  Republic,  and  the  motion  of  Mr.  Elizalde  in 
reference  to  the  admission  of  Mexico,  the  committee  was  able  to 
reach  a  unanimous  conclusion,  and  as  chairman  of  the  committee 
I  beg  to  submit  to  the  conference  and  ask  the  conference’s  approval 
of  the  resolution  of  the  committee  in  reference  to  the  admission  of 
these  three  States.  The  resolution  will  be  found  under  part  3  of 
the  report,  and  the  resolution  which  the  committee  submits  to  the 
conference  is  as  follows: 

The  commission  having  beforeitno  official  application  for  admission  to  the  confer¬ 
ence  from  the  Governments  of  Luxemburg,  the  Dominican  Republic,  and  Mexico, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  no  recommendation  as  to  their  admission  would  he  competent. 

While  the  members  of  the  committee  were  unable  to  agree  as  to 
the  interpretation  of  article  387  of  the  treaty  of  peace  which  refers 
to  the  constitution  of  this  organization  and  its  membership,  they 
were  all  agreed  on  this:  That  this  organization  was  composed  of 
Governments.  In  other  words,  it  is  a  nation  or  a  Government  as 
such  which  must  form  part  of  this  organization,  and  therefore  no 
nation  could  be  admitted  to  participation  in  this  organization  unless 
it  made  application  in  proper  form  by  its  own  Government. 

The  view  of  the  minority  was  that  such  an  application  would  have 
to  be  for  admission  to  the  League  of  Nations.  The  view  of  the  majority 


was  that  such  an  application  might  be  made  direct  to  this  conference. 
But  both  are  agreed  that  there  could  be  no  admission  of  a  member 
unless  there  was  an  application  duly  made  on  behalf  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  the  country  concerned. 

Therefore,  Mr.  President,  as  the  committee  did  not  have  before  it 
any  official  request  from  the  Governments  of  the  three  countries 
named,  the  committee  reached  the  unanimous  conclusion  embodied 
in  the  resolution,  that  this  conference  would  have  no  power  to  take 
cognizance  or  to  give  any  recognition  to  applications  presented 
through  third  parties.  The  view  of  the  committee  was  that  it  was 
not  a  matter  in  which  the  conference  could  act  upon  its  own  dis¬ 
cretion  or  according  to  its  own  feelings.  The  conference  must  be 
governed  by  the  terms  of  the  peace  treaty,  and  as  the  treaty  made  no 
provision  for  admission  except  of  nations  or  Governments,  therefore 
we  could  not  deal  with  these  applications. 

With  this  explanation,  Mr.  President,  I  beg  to  move  the  adoption 
by  the  conference  of  the  resolution  appearing  in  part  3  of  the  report 
of  the  committee,  as  follows: 

The  commission  having  before  it  no  official  application  for  admission  to  the  con¬ 
ference  from  the  Governments  of  Luxemburg,  the  Dominican  Republic,  and 
Mexico,  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  recommendation  as  to  their  admission  would  be 
competent. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  to  adopt  the 
resolution  contained  in  part  3  of  the  committee’s  report,  upon  which 
it  is  in  unanimous  agreement. 

As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  motion  will  raise  their  right 
hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted.  [Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands.  [Votes 
counted.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Baldesi  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian): 

The  commission  by  which  I  was  selected  as  reporter  was  appointed 
on  the  question  of  the  admission  of  the  nations  that  have  made  re¬ 
quests  to  be  admitted.  I  was  in  hopes  that  the  report  as  printed 
would  suffice  to  enlighten  this  assembly,  but  after  seeing  the  minor¬ 
ity  report  I  consider  that  I  must  make  a  few  remarks  to  make  still 
clearer  the  point  of  view  which  led  to  the  decision  of  the  majority 
of  that  commission. 

It  might  also  be  that  the  report  prepared  by  two  eminent 
lawyers  such  as  prepared  the  minority  report  might  have  altered 
my  point  of  view  as  the  reporter  of  the  majority,  but  I  say  that, 
on  the  contrary,  the  minority  report  strengthens  rather  than 
weakens  the  opinion  that  I  held  before. 

The  report  of  the  minority  is  based  mainly  on  a  question  of  inter¬ 
preting  the  sense  of  article  387  of  the  peace  treaty,  but  in  interpret¬ 
ing  that  article  I  believe  that  the  minority  report  falls  into  a  con¬ 
tradiction. 

In  their  dissertation  on  article  387  the  minority  report  insists  on 
the  interpretation  that  none  but  members  of  the  League  of  Nations 
have  a  right  to  be  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization, 
but  immediately  after  setting  forth  this  point  of  view  the  report 
goes  on  to  find  excuses  for  the  fact  that  the  council  in  Paris  refers  to 
this  assembly  ths  question  of  the  admission  of  Austria  and  Germany, 
which  are  not  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  tries  to  show 
reasons  why  that  was  possible  in  spite  of  the  hypothesis  they  main¬ 
tain  that  the  treaty  of  peace  explicitly  excludes  all  who  do  not  be¬ 
long  to  the  League  of  Nations  from  participation  in  this  body. 

The  reporter  says  that  the  fact  that  the  question  of  the  admission 
of  Austria  and  Germany  was  submitted  to  this  conference  and  passed 
on  by  it  is  the  best  support  that  can  be  found  for  the  theory  sus¬ 
tained  by  the  majority  in  its  report,  and  I  consider  that  the  argu¬ 
ments  brought  forward  by  the  minority  after  that  fact  remind  me 
of  that  judge  who  talked  for  five  days  to  prove  the  criminality  of 
the  defendant  and  then  let  him  off  because  he  said  that  his  case  did 
not  come  within  the  law  that  he  had  to  interpret. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


79 


If  this  body  had  a  right  to  admit  Austria  and  Germany,  and  if 
that  admission  is  valid,  and  if  they  are  to  become  members  of  this 
labor  organization  as  a  result,  then  the  hypothesis  maintained  by 
the  minority  can  not  beheld,  because  if  that  hypothesis  holds  good 
then  the  admission  of  those  two  countries  would  have  no  effect 
because  either  they  can  be  admitted,  and  their  membership  is  bind¬ 
ing  as  is  the  membership  of  other  countries,  or  else  they  can  not  be 
bound  unless  they  are  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  then 
the  admission  would  fall  as  being  in  effect  null  and  void. 

But  the  hypothesis  of  the  minority  is  further  disproved  by  the  fact 
that  it  was  the  Supreme  Council  of  Paris  which  decided  to  refer  to 
this  International  Labor  Conference  the  question  of  whether  it 
would  admit  Germany  and  Austria  to  membership.  Therefore, 
it  was  not  only  an  act  of  this  conference,  but  an  act  of  this  con¬ 
ference  taken  in  virtue  of  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Council  of  Paris. 

But  let  us  grant  a  point  to  the  minority.  Let  us  admit  that  the 
admission  of  Austria  and  of  Germany  formed  an  exceptional  case 
arising  from  special  political  conditions  due  to  the  fact  that  at  the 
time  of  the  formulation  of  the  pact  those  countries  were  enemies 
of  the  allied  powers  that  were  drawing  up  that  pact.  But  we  have  a 
still  further  case  on  which  to  support  the  judgment  of  the  majority. 
Later  on,  on  the  2d  of  October,  the  Supreme  Council  in  Paris  found 
itself  in  the  presence  of  two  requests  for  admission  to  this  conference, 
one  from  Finland  and  one  from  Norway,  neither  of  which  Govern¬ 
ments  had  at  that  time  adhered  to  the  League  of  Nations.  What 
did  the  Supreme  Council  in  Paris  do?  By  a  decision  that  it  took, 
it  was  decided  that  the  question  raised  by  the  note  of  the  secretary 
general  of  the  International  Labor  Commission  relating  to  the 
admission  of  Finland,  Norway,  and  the  Netherlands  to  the  approach¬ 
ing  conference  at  Washington  should  be  left  to  the  decision  of  this 
conference. 

If  then  the  case  was  decided  in  favor  of  Austria  and  Germany, 
with  only  one  opposing  vote- — and  that  in  spite  of  reasons  that  it 
is  unnecessary  to  go  into  now,  but  quite  special  reasons  which 
might  have  justified  a  contrary  decision  on  the  part  of  this  body — 
how  is  it  possible,  in  view  of  their  admission,  to  refuse  admission  to 
other  countries  which  ask  under  the  same  conditions,  and  to  say  to 
those  countries,  “No,  in  your  case  we  refuse  to  allow  you  to  cross 
our  threshold?” 

I  may  remind  this  assembly  of  yet  another  point,  namely,  the 
declarations  made  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  who  pointed  out  the  advantage 
that  the  International  Labor  Organization  derives  from  extending 
its  membership  to  the  largest  possible  number  of  countries,  and 
the  danger  to  both  workmen  and  employers  that  are  represented 
by  countries  remaining  outside  of  this  body,  and  therefore  not 
being  tied  to  observing  its  decisions.  Thus  the  majority  report 
has  taken  into  consideration  the  points  that  have  been  raised  within 
this  assembly  as  well  as  the  interpretation  of  the  article  of  the 
treaty  in  accordance  with  the  authoritative  opinions  expressed 
by  the  council  in  Paris. 

Under  these  conditions  it  was  not  possible  for  the  majority  of 
the  committee  on  admission  to  give  other  than  a  favorable  reception 
to  the  request  of  Finland  for  admission  properly  submitted  through 
its  Government  authorities.  It  could  have  none  but  a  lavorable 
reception.  The  objection  raised  by  some  one  in  the  committee 
that  the  Government  of  Finland  had  not  made  an  official  request 
to  this  conference  was  not  held  to  be  valid  because  neither  Ger¬ 
many  nor  Austria  made  an  official  demand  to  this  conference;  as  in 
their  case,  the  request  of  Finland  has  been  submitted  for  decision  to 
this  conference  by  the  Supreme  Council  in  Paris. 

Confident,  therefore,  that  the  majority  of  this  assembly  will 
accept  its  point  of  view,  the  committee  on  admission  has  presented 
two  resolutions,  one  admitting  the  question  of  the  principle  of  the 
right  to  admit,  and  the  other  the  special  case  of  Finland.  Even  if 
in  its  decision  the  committee  has  not  held  itself  strictly  to  what 
may  be  considered  a  legal  interpretation  of  some  of  the  clauses 
of  the  treaty,  I  wish  to  point  out  that  it  has  a  much  broader 
and  m<  re  important  aspect  for  this  assembly,  for  it  tends  to 


acknowledge  the  right  of  all  countries  and  to  extend  to  all  countries 
willing  to  assume  the  obligations  implied  by  membership  the  duties 
and  rights  that  this  body  affords,  and  thus  to  pave  the  way  for 
better  conditions  in  the  world  of  industry. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Rowell  is  recognized,  on  behalf  of  the 
minority. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  remind 
the  members  of  the  conference  that  the  question  which  they  are 
now  called  upon  to  consider  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  far- 
reaching  in  its  effects  of  any  questions  which  will  come  before  this 
conference  during  its  present  session.  It  is  important  and  far- 
reaching  because  it  involves  the  correct  interpretation  of  one  of  the 
articles  of  the  peace  treaty  which  goes  to  the  very  foundation 
of  the  organization  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  under 
the  labor  provisions  of  the  peace  treaty.  If  the  question  before 
the  conference  were  one  of  discretion,  one  in  which  the  conference 
was  simply  expressing  an  opinion  as  to  its  desires  or  as  to  the  policy 
that  should  be  pursued,  I  am  sure  there  would  be  no  difference 
of  opinion  whatever;  we  would  all  agree  that  it  was  desirable  that 
Finland  should  be  admitted,  and  we  would  vote  for  her  admission. 
That,  however,  is  not  the  question  before  the  conference.  The 
question  before  the  conference  is,  Has  the  conference  power  to  admit 
Finland  to  the  International  Labor  Organization? 

The  argument  in  favor  of  the  majority  report  may  be  fairly  stated 
as  being  on  two  principal  grounds,  both  of  which  are  set  forth  in  the 
majority  report.  The  first  ground  on  which  the  argument  that  we 
have  the  power  to  admit  Finland  is  based  is  on  the  terms  of  the 
article  of  the  treaty  itself.  Article  387  is  as  follows: 

A  permanent  organization  is  hereby  established  for  the  promotion  of  the  objects 
set  forth  in  the  preamble.  The  original  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  be 
the  original  members  of  this  organization,  and  hereafter  membership  of  the  League 
of  Nations  shall  carry  with  it  membership  of  the  said  organization. 

It  is  urged  in  the  majority  report  that  while  every  member  of  the 
League  of  Nations  becomes  a  member  of  this  organization,  because 
this  article  of  the  treaty  does  not  expressly  provide  that  there  shall 
be  no  other  method  of  admission  to  this  organization,  therefore  we 
are  justified  in  implying  that  there  is  such  power  and  acting  upon 
that  implied  power. 

The  other  ground  upon  which  the  majority  urge  that  we  have  the 
right  to  admit  Finland  is  that  the  Supreme  Council  in  Paris  has 
already  decided  in  effect  that  we  have  the  power  by  remitting  to  us 
for  action  the  application  of  Germany  and  Austria,  and  by  subse¬ 
quently  remitting  to  us  the  application  of  Finland. 

Now,  may  I  discuss  those  reasons  given  in  support  of  the  majority 
report  in  the  order  I  have  mentioned?  First,  let  me  point  out  to  the 
conference  the  importance  of  the  document  which  we  are.endeav- 
oring  to  interpret.  And  I  emphasize  the  importance  of  the  docu¬ 
ment  because,  Mr.  President,  it  appears  to  me  inconceivable  that 
the  able  experts  who  were  gathered  together  as  a  drafting  com¬ 
mittee  in  Paris,  with  a  view  of  framing  one  of  the  most  momentous 
documents  in  human  history,  should  have  so  far  failed  in  their  duty 
to  make  clear  their  meaning  on  a  matter  of  fundamental  impor¬ 
tance. 

This  peace  treaty  provides  for  two  international  organizations,  the 
one  having  a  very  close  and  intimate  relation  to  the  other.  The 
first  organization  it  provides  for  is  the  League  of  Nations.  The  sec¬ 
ond  organization  is  the  International  Labor  Organization.  The 
first  one  is  the  one  to  which  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the  world, 
and  particularly  the  toiling  masses  in  every  country,  look  forward 
as  evidencing  the  best  effort  which  the  human  mind  has  so  far  pro¬ 
duced  to  settle  by  peaceable  means  international  disputes  and  to 
save  the  world  from  a  repetition  of  the  horrors  of  this  war. 

The  second  organization,  having  as  I  have  stated  a  close  and  inti¬ 
mate  relation  to  the  first,  recognizes  that  the  world’s  peace  may  de¬ 
pend  to  no  small  extent  upon  the  conditions  of  the  toilers  in  every 
land,  and  that  as  a  necessary  part  of  any  program  for  insuring  the 
world ’8  peace  there  should  be  an  international  labor  organization 
which  might,  by  its  program  of  policies  and  reforms,  seek  to  estab 


80 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


lish  industrial  peace  among  the  nations,  better  living  conditions  for 
the  toiling  masses,  and  so  contribute  to  human  progress  throughout 
the  world.  Both  organizations  are  of  transcendent  importance. 

It  is  essential  to  the  success  of  these  two  great  organizations  that 
there  should  be,  first,  no  uncertainty  or  ambiguity  as  to  what  con¬ 
stitutes  membership  in  the  organization.  Members  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  will  realize  that  if  there  is  uncertainty,  if  there  is  ambiguity, 
as  to  who  are  or  are  not  members  of  these  organizations,  you  strike 
a  fatal  blow  to  the  efficiency  of  either,  and,  secondly,  there  should  be 
no  doubt  as  to  the  intention  of  such  members  to  sincerely  perform 
their  international  obligations. 

Now  let  us  see  what  provision  is  made  in  the  treaty  itself,  for 
we  must  look  to  the  treaty  itself  in  order  to  understand  its  meaning. 

Article  I  provides  for  the  constitution  of  the  League  of  Nations  and 
the  method  by  which  membership  in  the  league  may  be  secured, 
and  I  draw  attention  to  this  article  particularly  for  two  reasons — 
firstly  because  the  minority  submits  that  a  nation  can  only  be¬ 
come  a  member  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  if  it  first 
becomes  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and,  secondly,  to  point 
out  with  what  great  care  the  draftsmen  of  this  important  docu¬ 
ment  have  set  out  in  detail  the  conditions  upon  which  membership 
may  be  secured. 

Article  I  provides  who  may  become  members  of  the  League  of 
Nations.  First,  the  original  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall 
be  those  of  the  signatories  which  are  named  in  the  annex  to  the 
covenant.  In  other  words,  all  who  signed  the  treaty,  whose  names 
are  set  forth  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant,  are  thereby  made 
members  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Second,  also  such  of  those 
other  States  named  in  the  annex  as  shall  accede  without  reservation 
to  the  covenant. 

Members  of  the  conference  will  recall  that  certain  neutral  countries 
are  named  in  the  annex  as  potential  members  of  the  League  of 
Nations.  They  may  become  members  by  acceding  to  the  terms  of  the 
covenant  in  the  manner  provided  in  the  article.  Such  accession  shall 
be  effected  by  a  declaration  deposited  with  the  secretariat  within 
two  months  after  the  coming  into  force  of  the  covenant  and  notice 
thereof  shall  be  sent  to  all  other  members  of  the  league. 

Now,  if  a  nation  not  named  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant  desires 
to  become  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations,  the  procedure  is 
clearly  set  out  as  to  how  that  nation  may  become  a  member: 

Any  fully  self-governing  State,  dominion,  or  colony  not  named  in  the  annex  may 
become  s  member  of  the  league  i  f  its  admission  is  agreed  to  by  t  wj-thirds  of  the  assem¬ 
bly;  provided  that  it  shall  give  effectual  guaranties  of  its  sincere  intention  to  observe 
its  international  obligations  and  shall  accept  such  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed 
by  the  league  in  regard  to  its  military,  naval,  and  air  forces  and  armaments. 

Let  me  point  out,  in  order  to  become  a  member  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  if  a  nation  is  not  named  in  the  annex,  it  must  first  apply  for 
admission  through  its  government;  second,  it  must  give  effectual 
guaranties  as  to  its  sincere  intention  to  carry  out  its  international 
obligations;  third,  it  must  accept  the  restrictions  or  obligations 
imposed  upon  it  by  the  league  in  reference  to  its  armaments  and  its 
army ;  fourth,  it  must  be  admitted  to  the  league  by  a  two-thirds  vote 
of  its  membership.  The  conference  will  see  with  what  great  care  the 
draftsmen  of  this  peace  treaty  have  provided  for  the  admission  of  a 
new  member  to  the  league,  so  that  there  could  be  no  possible  doubt 
as  to  whether  the  nation  was  or  was  not  a  member. 

The  members  of  the  conference  will  notice  that  Article  I  does  not 
say  that  a  nation  may  not  be  admitted  to  the  League  of  Nations  in 
any  other  manner  than  that  provided  by  this  article,  and  if  the 
argument  of  the  majority  is  correct,  that  because  the  clause  dealing 
with  membership  in  the  labor  organization  does  not  expressly  ex¬ 
clude  any  other  method  of  securing  membership,  therefore  we  have 
the  right  to  admit  them.  One  might  with  equal  force  present  the 
argument  that  because  this  article  of  the  League  of  Nations  does  not 
expressly  provide  that  there  shall  be  no  other  method  of  securing 
membership  than  provided  in  this  article,  therefore  some  other 
method  may  be  adopted.  I  am  sure  the  presentation  of  such  an 
argmtnenl  to  a  serious  assembly  like  this  would  convey  its  own 


answer.  That  you  have  not  expressly  excluded  some  other  method 
is  no  argument  that  another  method  may  be  adopted.  Where  you 
have  one  method  provided  and  no  other  method  provided,  the 
method  provided  is  the  only  one  which  you  can  legally  and  consti¬ 
tutionally  adopt.  For  admission  to  the  League  of  Nations  it  says 
two-thirds  majority  of  the  general  assembly  of  the  league  is  neces¬ 
sary.  It  does  not  say  the  council  shall  have  no  authority  to  admit. 
If  the  argument  of  the  majority  is  correct,  you  might  say  that  the 
council  of  the  League  of  Nations  could  admit  to  membership  in  the 
league  because  this  article  does  not  expressly  exclude  such  a  method 
of  admission.  Such  an  argument  would  not  hold  for  one  moment. 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  how  a  new  State  may 
be  admitted  to  the  Union  by  the  action  of  the  Congress.  It  does 
not  expressly  state  that  there  is  no  other  method  of  admission.  But 
would  anyone  argue  that  there  was  any  other  method  of  admission  of 
a  State  to  the  Union  than  that  one  provided  by  the  Constitution? 
And  so  I  submit  with  great  confidence,  Mr.  President,  where  we 
have  a  method  provided  in  the  treaty  whereby  nations  may  become 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  that  provision 
in  itself  excludes  any  other  possible  method. 

Article  3S7,  which  provides  for  the  International  Labor  Organiza¬ 
tion,  is  as  follows: 

A  permanent  organization  is  hereby  established  for  the  promotion  of  the  objects 
set  forth  in  the  preamble.  The  original  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  be  the 
original  members  of  this  organization,  and  hereafter  membership  of  the  League  of 
Nations  shall  carry  with  it  membership  of  the  said  organization. 

I  submit,  Mr.  President,  this  article  clearly  points  out  the  way  of 
admission.  The  way  of  admission  is  through  the  door  of  the  League 
of  Nations,  and  there  is  no  other  way  of  admission  unless  by  the 
express  agreement  of  all  parties  to  this  treaty,  and  that  is  the  way 
Germany  and  Austria  were  permitted  to  come  in.  I  shall  deal  with 
that  more  at  length  later. 

In  order  that  the  conference  may  appreciate  that  this  view  is 
correct,  let  me  point  out  if  it  were  intended  that  there  should  be  any 
other  way  of  securing  admission,  I  submit  it  is  inconceivable  that  the 
draftsmen  of  this  convention  would  not  have  set  out  the  method  by 
which  such  States  should  come  in,  and  the  obligations  which  they 
should  assume  when  they  came  in. 

When  we  deal  with  the  article  relating  to  the  admission  to  the 
League  of  Nations,  they  provide  the  exact  procedure.  When  we  come 
to  the  article  relating  to  the  International  Labor  Organization,  they 
provide  a  method  through  the  League  of  Nations,  and  they  make  no 
other  provisions.  Not  only  is  that  the  case,  but  they  provide  no 
formalities  whatever  for  admission.  They  provide  in  the  labor  con¬ 
vention  that  matters  of  procedure  may  be  settled  by  a  majority  vote. 
They  provide  that  certain  important  matters  shall  require  a  two- 
thirds  vote.  If  this  conference  were  to  have  the  power  to  admit  new 
nations,  is  it  conceivable  that  it  would  not  have  been  provided  in  the 
convention  itself  how  the  vote  should  be  taken,  or  whether  it  should 
be  a  majority  or  two-thirds,  as  in  other  cases?  There  is  no  provision 
whereby  a  nation  coming  in  by  vote  of  this  conference  should,  as 
such,  assume  the  obligations  of  the  covenant,  absolutely  no  provision 
whereby  it  should  assume  the  obligations,  and  be  bound  by  them. 
There  is  absolutely  no  provision  whereby  a  nation,  if  admitted  by 
this  conference,  should  be  able  to  retire  from  the  organization. 

The  members  of  this  conference  who  are  members  of  the  League  of 
Nations  contribute  to  the  expense  of  the  conference  through  the 
League  of  Nations,  because  all  the  expenses  of  this  Internationa] 
Labor  Organization  are  borne  out  of  its  funds,  except  the  expenses  of 
the  delegates.  If  this  conference  has  power  to  admit  a  new  member 
there  is  no  provision  for  such  a  member  making  any  contribution 
to  the  expenses.  Is  it  conceivable  that  the  framers  of  this  treaty 
intended  that  we  should  admit  a  new  nation  without  making  any 
provision  that  that  new  nation  should  assume  either  the  obligations 
of  the  covenant  or  of  contributing  to  the  expense? 

Not  only  is  this  the  case,  Mr.  President,  but  the  convention  itself 
says  that  the  International  Labor  Office  shall  be  established  at  the 
seat  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  part  of  the  organization  thereof,  the 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


81 


membership  being  identical;  the  labor  office  is  established  at  the 
seat  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  part  of  the  organization  thereof; 
further,  the  International  Labor  Office  is  entitled  to  the  assistance 
of  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  there  are  many 
other  provisions  in  the  covenant  indicating  that  the  membership  of 
the  two  organizations  was  intended  to  be  identical. 

Therefore,  I  submit  that  a  perusal  of  the  covenant  itself  clearly 
shows  that  we  should  follow  the  natural  construction  We  should 
admit  only  through  the  door  of  the  League  of  Nations,  because  it  is 
only  by  admission  through  that  door  that  a  nation  which  is  not  a 
signatory  to  the  peace  treaty  nor  named  in  the  covenant  can  be 
bound  by  its  obligations  or  required  to  contribute  to  its  expense. 

Mr.  President,  that  the  interpretation  which  the  minority  report 
puts  upon  this  clause  is  correct  is  made  clear  beyond  question  by 
the  proceedings  which  took  place  at  the  plenary  session  of  the  peace 
conference  when  this  labor  convention  was  adopted.  Those  pro¬ 
ceedings  came  to  my  attentiou  after  the  minority  report  had  been 
prepared  and  distributed.  Therefore,  I  prepared  a  short,  supple¬ 
mentary  report  covering  these  proceedings,  which  has  been  distribu¬ 
ted,  I  think,  only  in  English.  I  am  sorry  the  translator  has  not 
been  able  to  get  out  the  French  translation  of  it.  I  desire  to  make  a 
brief  reference  to  the  proceeding  at  this  session  of  the  peace  confer¬ 
ence.  The  first  is  a  reference  to  the  address  of  Mr.  Barnes,  who  was 
chairman  of  the  commission  which  presented  the  report  to  the  con¬ 
ference.  Mr.  Barnes  discussed  the  very  point  now  under  considera¬ 
tion.  This  is  the  language  used  by  Mr.  Barnes: 

Now,  let  me  say  a  few  words  about  its  main  provision.  First  of  all,  its  boundaries 
are  made  to  coincide  with  those  of  the  League  of  Nations.  W e  have  two  reasons  for 
this:  first,  because  in  doing  that  the  League  of  Nations  is  thereby  invested  with  duties 
of  a  positive  nature  and  associated  with  the  every-day  life  of  the  community;  and 
secondly,  all  nations  in  the  league  are  brought  into  world  cooperation  for  industrial 
improvement.  Thereby  a  favorable  impression  will  be  created  on  labor  in  all  coun¬ 
tries,  because  the  impression  will  be  created  that  the  peace  conference  is  seriously 
regarding  this  labor  conference. 

The  sentence  I  desire  to  emphasize  particularly  is  this: 

First  of  all  its  boundaries  are  made  to  coincide  with  those  of  the  League  of  N ations. 

The  membership  in  the  two  was  intended  to  be  identical.  It  was 
on  the  basis  of  that  representation  as  to  the  effect  and  meaning  of 
this  convention  that  the  peace  conference  adopted  it. 

But  that  is  not  all.  At  that  session  of  the  conference  there  ap¬ 
peared  to  be  certain  clauses  in  the  convention  which  left  some 
doubt  as  to  whether  the  membership  stood  on  exactly  the  same 
basis  as  the  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations  and  as  to  whether 
adherence  to  the  convention  would  be  exactly  the  same,  and  a  reso¬ 
lution  was  moved  by  Sir  Robert  Borden  as  follows: 

The  conference  authorizes  the  drafting  committee  to  make  such  amendments  as 
may  be  necessary  to  have  the  convention  conform  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations  in  the  character  of  its  membership  and  in  the  method  of  adherence. 

There  was  submitted  to  the  peace  conference  itself  by  way  of  an 
amendment  to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes,  this  direct  proposition, 
that  the  drafting  committee  should  make  clear  that  in  its  member¬ 
ship  and  in  the  method  of  adherence  it  should  be  the  same  as  the 
League  of  Nations.  That  motion  by  Sir  Robert  Borden  was  unani¬ 
mously  adopted  by  the  peace  conference. 

If  the  majority  report  prevails,  what  does  it  say,  in  effect?  It  says 
in  effect  that  the  drafting  committee  of  the  peace  conference  did  not 
have  the  ability  or  capacity  to  put  into  the  peace  treaty  the  express 
direction  of  the  conference.  I  for  one  shall  not  be  a  party  to  making 
any"  such  reflection  upon  the  able  draftsmen  who  prepared  this  treaty 
of  peace.  If  the  nations  of  the  world  once  got  the  impression  that 
the  drafting  of  this  great  document  was  so  faulty  that  the  draftsmen 
did  not  carry  into  the  body  of  the  convention  the  express  decisions 
of  the  conference,  the  confidence  of  the  world  in  the  document 
would  be  shaken.  It  is  because  we  are  taking  such  an  important 
decision  to-day  that  I  am  taking  the  time  of  the  conference  to  pre¬ 
sent  the  facts  to  you. 

But,  I  say",  the  draftsmen  made  no  mistake.  They  carried  out  not 
only  the  intention  of  the  Labor  Commission  as  stated  by  Mr.  Barnes, 
but  they  carried  out  the  express  direction  of  the  conference,  and  they 


made  the  character  of  the  membership  and  the  method  of  adherence 
to  the  treaty  identical  with  that  of  the  League  of  Nations.  How  did 
they  do  so?  Not  by  repeating  in  this  covenant  the  same  provisions 
as  applied  to  the  League  of  Nations,  but  by  making  the  entrance  to 
this  organization  through  the  door  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

Now,  to  deal  with  the  last  point,  or  at  least  the  itnportant  point 
raised  by  the  majority  report  on  the  admission  of  Germany  and 
Austria.  I  understand  the  position  of  Austria  is  the  same  as  that  of 
Germany,  so  in  dealing  with  Germany  may  I  be  taken  to  be  dealing 
with  both?  What  was  the  situation?  Germany  asked  before  she 
signed  the  treaty  that  the  allied  and  associated  powers  should  agree 
that  she  should  be  admitted  to  the  League  of  Nations,  and  also  to 
the  International  Labor  Organization.  That  matter  was  carefully 
considered  by  the  allied  and  associated  powers,  and  for  reasons  which 
we  need  not  here  discuss  this  afternoon,  they  decided  that  although 
Germany  would  sign  the  treaty  and  be  bound  by  its  provisions,  she 
should  not  be  admitted  immediately  into  the  League  of  Nations. 
We  need  not  discuss  the  reasons  for  that  conclusion,  but  they  reached 
that  conclusion.  But  in  reference  to  the  International  Labor 
Organization  I  am  informed  they  reached  the  conclusion  that  she 
might  be  admitted  immediately,  and  that  they  would  remit  the 
date  of  her  admission  to  the  conference  here.  The  allied  and 
associated  powers  had  a  perfect  right  to  conclude  such  an  agreement 
with  Germany  if  they  saw  fit,  and  to  admit  Germany  after  she  had 
signed  the  treaty  and  become  bound  by  its  provisions,  to  this  labor 
organization,  making  an  exception  in  her  case,  for  reasons  which 
would  appear  obvious  because  of  the  economic  and  industrial 
situation  of  Europe.  They  had  the  right  to  do  it  and  that  is  what 
they  did  do,  as  I  am  informed.  They  came  to  an  agreement  with 
Germany  whereby  she  might  be  so  admitted,  and  they  remitted  to 
this  conference  the  question  of  the  date  upon  which  she  might  be 
admitted. 

There  is  nothing  exceptional  about  that.  All  the  parties  to  the 
agreement  could  make  an  agreement  whereby  Germany  might  be 
admitted  under  those  exceptional  conditions  to  this  organization 
before  her  application  for  admission  to  the  League  of  Nations  had 
been  definitely  granted.  That  is  what  the  powers  did.  Now,  it  is 
true,  as  appears  in  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee,  that  the 
secretary  of  the  committee  communicated  with  the  Supreme  Council 
and  asked  if  it  was  necessary  to  modify  this  clause  of  the  treaty  in 
order  to  admit  Germany.  They  said  “No,”  and  I  agree  with  that 
view.  It  was  not  necessary  to  change  the  whole  basis  of  the  consti¬ 
tution  of  this  International  Labor  Organization  because  they  wanted 
to  make  a  special  agreement,  a  special  exception,  with  reference  to 
Germany,  who  had  already  applied  to  be  admitted  to  the  League  of 
Nations  and  who  would  be  admitted  at  a  later  date  when  the  Allies 
decided  to  admit  them. 

And  so  by  an  agreement  between  the  associated  and  allied  powers, 
embodied  in  the  correspondence  that  passed  between  the  president 
of  the  peace  conference  and  the  representative  of  Germany,  an  agree¬ 
ment  was  concluded  whereby  Germany  might  be  admitted  at  an 
earlier  date.  It  was  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  modify  the  provision. 
It  was  not  modified,  and  it  still  stands  in  all  the  strength  in  which  it 
was  drafted  by  the  drafting  committee  and  approved  by  the  peace 
conference. 

The  same  also  applies  to  Austria.  Agreement  was  made  with 
Austria,  as  I  understand  and  as  I  am  advised  by  the  officers  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  whereby  she  should  be  admitted  under  those 
exceptional  conditions  also.  But  because  the  allied  and  associated 
powers  made  a  special  agreement  with  Germany  and  Austria  before 
they  signed  the  peace  treaty  whereby  they  should  be  admitted  is 
no  reason  why  we  should  take  upon  ourselves  the  power  to  vary  this 
covenant  embodied  in  the  peace  treaty  and  to  say  that  all  nations, 
even  though  they  are  not  signatories  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  even 
though  no  such  agreement  has  been  made  with  them,  can  be  admitted 
under  the  provisions  of  this  clause. 

Let  me  say  further,  Mr.  President,  as  I  said  in  opening,  this 
involves  a  most  important  question  of  interpretation  of  the  pro- 


146865— 20— C 


82 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


visions  of  the  treaty.  We  have  here  at  the  conference  the  legal 
adviser  of  the  conference  who  knows  this  treaty.  He  has  advised  us 
that  we  have  no  power  to  admit  Finland.  He  has  advised  us  that 
the  only  way  to  secure  admission  to  this  organization,  apart  from  the 
special  agreement  to  which  all  the  allied  and  associated  powers  are 
parties,  is  through  the  League  of  Nations.  So  that,  eliminating  the 
minority  report  entirely,  what  is  the  situation  that  faces  the  confer¬ 
ence?  You  have  the  opinion  of  the  legal  adviser  of  the  conference 
that  we  have  no  power;  you  have  the  opinion  of  the  majority  report 
that  we  have  the  power.  Then  that  directly  raises  a  question  of 
interpretation  of  this  covenant  of  the  first  importance.  Article  423 
provides: 

Any  question  or  dispute  relating  to  the  interpretation  of  this  part  of  the  present 
treaty,  or  of  any  subsequent  convention  included  by  the  members  in  pursuance  of 
the  provisions  of  this  part  of  the  present  treaty,  shall  be  referred  for  decision  to 
a  permanent  board  of  international  justice. 

My  further  point,  Mr.  President,  is  that  this  conference  has  no 
power  to  interpret  the  treaty.  If  there  is  a  bona  fide  dispute — • 
and  there  is — there  must  he  when  the  legal  adviser  says  we  have 
no  power  and  the  committee  says  that  we  have — there  is  only  one 
way  to  settle  it,  and  that  is  the  way  provided  in  the  convention 
itself,  by  referring  this  matter  for  settlement  to  the  permanent 
court  of  international  justice,  when  constituted.  Before  it  is  con¬ 
stituted  provision  is  made  for  the  setting  up  of  a  special  tribunal  by 
the  council  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  determine  such  a  question. 

Mr.  President,  in  conclusion  let  me  refer  to  the  reference  made 
by  Mr.  Baldesi  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Supreme  Council  in  re¬ 
ferring  to  the  position  of  Norway  and  some  other  countries  he  referred 
to.  The  position  of  Norway,  Sweden,  and  the  other  States  who  are 
mentioned  in  the  annex  to  the  League  of  Nations  was  dealt  with  in 
a  communication  dated  August  20,  sent  by  the  organizing  committee 
to  all  the  nations  who  have  been  invited  to  take  part  in  this  con¬ 
ference.  And  their  position  was  this,  that  with  a  view  of  expe¬ 
diting  proceedings,  all  these  nations  should  be  invited  to  participate 
in  the  conference  in  anticipation  of  their  becoming  members  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  by  adhering  to  the  convention.  But  they  point 
out  that  if  they  fail  to  adhere  to  the  peace  treaty  and  thereby  fail 
to  become  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  they  would  cease  to  be 
members  of  this  organization.  Let  me  read  the  extract  from  the 
communication  sent  out  by  the  organizing  committee  upon  which 
this  conference  was  called  together: 

In  regard  to  the  45  States  enumerated  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant,  the  organizing 
committee  is  of  opinion  that  they  should  all  be  invited  to  take  part  in  the  Labor 
Conference  at  Washington,  just  as  Switzerland  was  invited  to  take  part  in  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee.  The  invitation  would  lapse,  however,  in  the  case  of  any  State 
which  failed  to  give  its  adherence  as  provided  in  the  peace  treaty  within  the  period 
indicated  in  article  1  paragraph  1,  of  this  treaty. 

Then,  Mr.  President,  if,  on  the  basis  on  which  this  conference  is 
organized,  Norway  and  Sweden  and  these  other  countries  would 
cease  to  be  members  if  they  failed  to  adhere  to  the  treaty,  how  could 
we  possibly  admit  Finland,  who  is  not  a  party  to  the  treaty,  not  even 
named  in  the  annex,  and  which  can  not  come  in  until  the  League  of 
Nations  is  formed  and  a  meeting  is  held  and  they  are  admitted  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  procedure  provided  in  article  1  of  the  treaty? 

And  then  Mr.  Baldesi  said: 

But  the  Supreme  Council  has  referred  the  question  to  us,  and  that  clearly  shows 
that  the  Supreme  Coimcil  believes  we  have  the  right  to  admit  Finland.  In  fact, 
the  Supreme  Council  has  in  effect  told  us  to  do  so. 

Well,  Mr.  President,  I  have  great  respect  for  the  Supreme  Coimcil 
when  dealing  with  political  matters,  when  making  treaties;  but  the 
Supreme  Council  has  no  more  right  or  authority  to  interpret  a  treaty 
than  have  the  members  of  this  conference — either  the  smallest  or 
the  greatest  power  at  the  conference.  The  Supreme  Council  has  no 
more  power  to  interpret  this  treaty  than  has  any  other  group  of 
five  people  gathered  together  for  any  purpose.  They  are  a  political 
body.  If  it  once  went  out  to  the  country  that  the  Supreme  Council, 
composed  of  the  five  great  powers,  had  the  power  of  interpretation, 
if  they  can  add  to  the  obligations  of  the  smaller  powers,  and  if  they 
can  reduce  the  obligation  of  the  smaller  powers,  if  they  can  change 


this  treaty  one  iota,  then  confidence  in  the  treaty  would  be  shaken. 
The  Supreme  Council  have  no  power  of  interpretation  whatever. 
They  can  make  treaties;  the  treaties  themselves  provide  how  they 
shall  be  interpreted. 

Therefore,  Mr.  President,  I  beg  to  move,  in  substitution  for  the 
resolutions  moved  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  the  following  resolution  set  out 
in  the  minority  report: 

In  view  of  the  opinion  of  the  legal  adviser  of  the  conference,  that  admission  to 
membership  in  the  International  Labor  Organization  can  be  secured  only  through 
membership  in  the  League  of  Nations,  and  that  the  conference  itself  has  no  power  to 
grant  membership  in  the  abor  organization;  in  view  also  of  the  action  of  the  Supreme 
Council  in  submitting  the  question  of  Finland’s  admission  to  the  judgment  of  the 
conference,  the  conference  is  of  opinion  that  the  immediate  admission  of  Finland  as 
a  member  of  the  labor  organization  is  desirable. 

The  conference  commends,  therefore,  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  League 
of  Nations  the  immediate  admission  of  Finland  to  the  league,  upon  her  compliance 
with  the  necessary  conditions. 

2.  The  conference  welcomes  the  delegates  nominated  by  Finland  to  attend  the 
Washington  meeting,  and  invites  their  delegates  to  take  part  informally  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  conference. 

I  submit,  Mr.  President,  we  should  do  for  the  delegates  from  Fin¬ 
land,  Government  delegates,  labor  delegates,  and  employers’  dele¬ 
gates  just  what  we  have  done  for  the  employers’  representatives  and 
labor’s  representatives  of  the  United  States.  In  short,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  my  proposal  is  that  we  should  treat  Finland  just  as  we  have 
treated  the  representatives  of  the  United  States. 

That  is  the  full  limit,  I  believe,  of  our  power.  We  desire  their 
cooperation  in  the  conference.  We  can  not  legally  make  them 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  and  it  would  be 
unwise  to  attempt  to  do  so,  unwise  for  this  reason,  because  if  the 
majority  is  wrong  in  its  interpretation  and  the  convention  is  agreed 
upon  by  this  conference,  it  may  be  by  a  close  vote,  where  a  two- 
thirds  majority  is  required.  If  this  conference  is  not  legally  consti¬ 
tuted  and  if  its  membership  is  not  the  membership  provided  by  the 
constitution,  then,  perchance,  any  nation  which  did  not  desire  to 
carry  out  its  obligations  might  challenge  the  findings  of  the  con¬ 
ference  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  legally  constituted. 

Why,  Mr.  President,  should  we  run  that  risk?  Why,  Mr.  President 
should  we  create  doubt  as  to  the  whole  basis  of  our  organization?  In 
view  of  the  opinion  of  the  legal  adviser  of  the  conference  let  us  agree 
to  invite  representatives  of  Finland  to  participate  just  as  the  employ¬ 
ers  and  employees  of  the  United  States  have  been  invited  to  par¬ 
ticipate,  go  on  with  our  proceedings,  our  conference  constituted  when 
the  League  of  Nations  goes  into  effect,  and  ratify  the  convention  under 
those  conditions. 

I  apologize  for  taking  up  so  much  of  your  time.  I  thought  the 
matter  was  so  important  I  should  set  forth  the  position  fully  before 
you.  I  have  no  interest  in  it  direct  or  indirect  except  as  a  member 
of  this  conference  and  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations.  I  submit 
these  resolutions  to  you  as  the  minority  report  of  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  as  substitutes  for  the  resolutions  submitted  by  the 
majority.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Senator  Halfred  von  Koch,  of  the  Swedish 
delegation. 

Senator  VON  KOCH  (Sweden).  As  the  representative  from 
Sweden,  the  country  that  for  centuries  has  had  the  closest  con¬ 
nection  with  Finland  and  was  the  first  to  recognize  it  as  an  inde¬ 
pendent  country,  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  in  favor  of  the  participa 
tion  of  Finland  in  this  conference  with  the  same  rights  as  other 
nations.  As  far  as  I  can  understand,  all  agree,  even  Mr.  Rowell,  that 
Finland  ought  to  take  part  as  soon  as  possible  in  this  conference,  but 
some  legal  points  have  been  raised  in  the  minority  report  and  in  this 
speech  now  delivered  by  Mr.  Rowell,  as  to  the  competence  of  this 
conference  to  admit  Finland.  I  will  not  enter  upon  this  question 
in  detail.  I  surely  believe  that  you  have  got  enough  of  details 
about  the  peace  treaty  and  such  things  already,  but  I  will  only  say 
that  I  would  quite  agree  with  Mr.  Rowell  and  his  point  of  view  if 
the  League  of  Nations  existed  at  present,  but  that  not  being  the  case, 
and  many  other  countries  here  represented  not  having  yet  taken 
up  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  they  shall  join  the  league,  I 


INTERNATIONAL  L 

am  at  a  loss  to  understand  why  we  should  take  the  very  rigid  legal 
attitude  with  regard  to  Finland  that  Mr.  Rowell  has  taken.  It  is 
impossible  for  me  to  understand  that  we  in  any  way  violate  the 
peace  treaty  if  we  now  admit  Finland  to  this  conference.  I  will 
also  call  your  attention  to  the  fact,  as  Mr.  Baldesi  already  has  done, 
that  the  Supreme  Council,  on  October  2, 1919,  adopted  a  resolution 
to  the  effect  that  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Finland  to  the 
approaching  conference  at  Washington  be  left  to  the  decision  of 
the  conference. 

Mr.  Rowell  has  said  that  the  Supreme  Council  had  no  power  to 
interpret  the  peace  treaty.  I  should  very  much  like  to  know  who 
has  the  power  at  the  present  time  to  do  that.  The  Supreme  Council 
has  created,  as  far  as  I  know,  the  peare  treaty,  and  has  certainly  also, 
as  far  as  I  can  understand,  the  power  to  interpret  it  until,  of  course, 
the  League  of  Nations  has  come  into  existence.  In  this  connection 
Mr.  President,  I  want  particularly  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Council  concerning  Finland  is  worded 
in  exactly  the  same  way  as  the  decisions  regarding  Germany  and 
Austria.  Finland  is  thus  in  the  same  position  as  Germany  and 
Austria,  their  names  not  being  included  in  the  annex  containing  the 
names  of  the  countries  invited  to  the  covenant. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  this  conference  has  admitted  Germany  and 
Austria,  with  the  same  rights  as  other  countries  to  participate  in  this 
conference.  Why  should  we  then  take  a  stricter  legal  point  of  view 
concerning  Finland  than  concerning  Germany  and  Austria? 

There  are,  moreover,  some  very  important  facts  regarding  Finland 
which  I  should  like  very  much  to  bring  to  your  attention.  First, 
one  must  remember  that  Finland  has  large  industries  and  a  great 
number  of  working  men.  These  working  men  are  well  organized. 
Also,  the  employers  of  Finland  have  a  strong  organization.  Dele¬ 
gates  for  both  these  organizations  are  here  at  Washington  eager  to 
take  part  in  our  conference. 

Furthermore,  I  beg  to  state  the  important  fact  that  Finland  has 
previously  taken  part  in  international  conferences  of  this  kind.  As 
a  result  of  that  the  country  has  laws  that  cover  a  great  deal  of  our 
work.  Finland  is  thus  a  country  of  very  high  standing  as  regards 
labor  questions.  For  us,  the  neighbors  of  Finland,  it  is  very  essen¬ 
tial  that  Finland  join  this  conference,  thus  enabling  that  country  to 
have  its  laws  and  conditions  brought  into  accord  with  the  decisions 
of  this  conference.  In  fact,  it  is  important  not  only  for  us,  but  also 
for  many  other  countries.  The  more  countries  that  adhere  to  the 
convention  the  better,  this  especially  with  regard  to  those  countries 
that  have  considerable  industries.  We  have  here  to  form  a  basis 
for  future  social  work.  Why,  then,  leave  out  an  independent  coun¬ 
try  with  large  industries? 

We  must  not  look  too  much  to  the  letter  in  this  instance;  we 
must  look  forward,  and  take  the  country  of  Finland  into  our 
union. 

The  Finnish  Government  has  sent  a  complete  delegation  here, 
two  Government  delegates,  one  employer,  and  one  workman.  They 
are  awaiting  our  decision.  Do  not  let  them  wait  in  vain. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  beg  to  second  the  resolution  included  in  the 

majority  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Neumann,  the  delegate  from  Denmark, 
is  recognized . 

Mr.  NEUMANN  (Denmark).  May  I,  on  behalf  of  the  Danish 
delegation,  add  but  a  few  words  to  the  discussion  on  this  subject? 

As  the  delegate  from  Sweden  has  just  mentioned,  Finland  has  made 
social  problems  the  subject  of  a  thorough  and  careful  study.  The 
three  countries — Sweden,  Norway,  and  Denmark — have  had  plenty 
of  opportunity  to  make  themselves  acquainted  with  this  fact  in  con¬ 
ferences  held  upon  social  questions  between  the  said  countries  and 
Finland.  There  is  thus  no  doubt  as  to  the  desirability  of  the  partici 
pation  of  the  Finnish  delegates  at  this  conference,  and  I  am  glad  to 
notice  that  also  the  minority  of  the  commission  is  of  this  same 
opinion. 

In  fact,  the  minority  really  thinks  it  desirable  that  Finland  should 
be  admitted  to  this  conference,  but  is  of  opinion  that  legal  points  of 


ABORCONFERENCE  83 

view  are  a  hindrance  for  the  admission  of  Finland.  I  can  not  agree 
with  the  minority  in  this  respect. 

The  legal  question  has,  in  my  opinion,  been  decided  upon  by  the 
Supreme  Council  under  appeal  to  the  permanent  court  of  international 
justice,  and  the  conference  has  not  the  power  to  criticise  the  actions 
of  the  Supreme  Council.  The  Supreme  Council  has  by  leaving  the 
decision  to  the  conference  clearly  determined  that  there  is  no  legal 
hindrance  for  the  admission  of  Finland  to  the  conference. 

I,  therefore,  beg  to  ask  the  conference  to  favor  the  formal  ad¬ 
mission  of  Finland  to  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Judge  Castberg,  of  Norway. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  the  minority  has 
maintained  that  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  the  present  conference 
to  admit  Finland  to  the  International  Labor  Organization,  because 
Finland  has  not  yet  adhered  to  the  treaty  of  peace  and  become  a 
member  of  the  League  of  Nations,  nor  is  Finland  among  the  countries 
enumerated  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant  of  the  league.  It  seems  to 
me,  however,  that  the  considerations  which  have  made  this  conference 
regard  it  as  within  its  legal  authority  to  admit  to  full  participation  in 
our  sessions  representatives  of  a  considerable  number  of  nations  which 
have  not  yet  decided  to  join  the  League  of  Nations,  should  likewise 
be  applied  with  regard  to  the  admission  of  Finland.  The  circum¬ 
stance  that  Finland  is  not  mentioned  in  the  annex  to  the  League  of 
Nations  does  not  seem  to  me  to  constitute  a  sufficient  reason  fir 
making  any  distinction  in  this  respect.  Many  of  the  countries  which 
are  mentioned  in  said  annex  have  been  so  mentioned  without  any 
explicit  request  on  their  part,  and  it  does  not,  of  course,  constitute 
any  indication  as  to  what  decision  such  countries  will  take  in  regard 
to  the  question  of  joining  the  league. 

If  it  is  maintained  that  the  official  proceedings  of  this  conference 
in  which  representatives  of  such  nations  as  are  just  referred  to, 
participate — if,  as  I  say,  it  is  maintained  that  these  proceedings,  as 
well  as  the  conclusion  which  we  may  reach,  shall  at  a  later  juncture 
be  officially  adopted,  we  shall  still  be  confronted  with  the  not 
unlikely  possibility  that  certain  of  our  decisions  have  been  adopted 
partly  with  the  votes  of  representatives  of  nations  who  have  not  even 
after  the  termination  of  this  conference  joined  the  league.  The 
position  of  Finland  seems  to  me  to  differ  so  very  inconsiderably  from 
such  countries  as  last  referred  to  that  it  would  hardly  be  justifiable  to 
make  any  distinction  with  regard  to  the  status  of  Finland. 

I  should  also  like  to  add  that  it  would  seem  to  me  to  be  more  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  our  present  undertaking,  as  well  as  with 
that  new  spirit  of  international  brotherhood  and  good  will  among 
nations,  upon  which  the  whole  structure  of  the  peace  treaty  and  the 
League  of  Nations  was  built,  if  we  right  now  in  harmony  with  previous 
decisions  of  this  conference  take  upon  us  the  responsibility  of  declar¬ 
ing  Finland  admitted  to  full  and  regular  membership  of  this  con¬ 
ference.  I  recognize  that  this  question  is  an  important  and  difficult 
question  of  interpretation,  and  I  respectfully  submit  to  the  minority 
if  it  could  not  in  any  case  add  to  its  motion  that  Finland  should  be 
a  member  of  this  conference,  or  take  part  in  the  proceedings  of  this 
conference,  with  all  the  rights  and  duties  as  the  other  members, 
without  mentioning  the  organization,  only  the  conference.  But  as 
the  case  is  standing  now  I  can  not  vote  for  the  motion  of  the  minority. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain, 
is  recognized. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President, 
I  rise,  on  behalf  of  the  Government  delegates  from  Great  Britain,  to 
oppose  the  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  and  to  support  the  amendment 
moved  by  Mr.  Rowell.  And  I  do  so,  not  only  on  behalf  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  delegates  but  with  the  support  of  the  whole  delegation  of 
Great  Britain.  I  do  not  propose  to  go  into  the  legal  questions  which 
have  been  raised.  They  have  been  set  out  in  what  appears  to  me  to 
be  an  admirable  and  forceful  manner  in  the  report  submitted  by  Mr. 
Rowell.  But  I  wish  to  say  this,  and  I  wish  to  say  it  as  strongly  as 
possible,  that  whatever  the  legal  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
may  be,  it  is  certain  that  the  meaning  of  that  treaty  was  understood 
by  Great  Britain,  and  by  many  other  countries,  as  being  that  which 


84 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


has  been  expressed  by  Mr.  Rowell.  When  this  labor  convention 
was  framed  in  Paris,  the  object  and  purpose  of  those  who  were  con¬ 
cerned  in  framing  it  was  to  connect  the  labor  organization  with  the 
League  of  Nations  and  to  make  the  labor  organization  a  part  of  the 
organization  of  the  league.  It  was  with  that  understanding  that 
Great  Britain,  and  I  believe  many  other  countries,  too,  accepted  the 
labor  clauses  of  the  treaty  of  peace.  And  I  desire  to  protest  in  the 
strongest  possible  manner  against  the  attempt  which  is  being  made 
in  this  conference  by  certain  delegates  to  alter  what  was  understood 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  treaty  of  peace. 

If  it  is  desired  to  effect  any  alteration  in  the  meaning  of  the  treaty, 
it  should  have  been  done  after  consultation  with  the  powers  which 
signed  that  treaty.  There  has  been  no  such  consultation;  there  has 
been  no  opportunity  for  consulting  the  powers  who  signed  the  treaty 
of  peace;  and  the  movers  of  this  motion  that  Finland  should  be 
admitted  to  the  organization  at  once  by  this  conference  are  attempt¬ 
ing  to  force  upon  the  conference  and  upon  the  powers  who  signed 
the  treaty  a  meaning  which,  in  our  opinion,  it  was  never  intended 
to  have.  And,  sir,  I  protest  most  strongly,  on  behalf  of  the  British 
Government  and  the  British  delegation,  against  any  such  attempt 
being  made. 

In  the  second  place,  this  motion  goes  beyond  the  request  which 
was  made  by  the  Government  of  Finland  to  the  Supreme  Council  in 
Paris.  That  request  was  that  Finland  might  be  admitted  to  this 
conference  in  Washington.  The  request  was  not  made  that  they 
should  be  admitted  now  to  the  labor  organization.  Mr.  Baldesi 
and  those  who  are  supporting  him  are  going  beyond  the  request  of 
the  Government  of  Finland  made  in  Paris  to  the  Supreme  Council 
and  are  going  beyond  the  reference  which  was  made  to  this  confer¬ 
ence  by  the  Supreme  Council. 

I  say  at  once  that  so  far  as  we  are  concerned  there  is  not  the  slight¬ 
est  objection  to  the  admission  of  the  delegates  from  Finland  to  this 
conference,  to  take  part  in  its  deliberations  and  proceedings.  The 
'conference  has  already  decided  to  admit  informally  representatives 
of  the  American  employers  and  workers,  and  we  heartily  support 
the  proposal  which  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Rowell  that  the  Finnish 
delegates  should  be  admitted  to  this  conference  and  should  take  part 
in  its  proceedings  in  exactly  the  same  way  as  the  representatives  of 
American  employers  and  American  workers.  But  that  is  an  entirely 
different  question  from  the  proposal  which  has  been  made  by  Mr. 
Baldesi.  He  proposes  that  they  should  be  admitted  to  the  labor 
organization;  and  we  are  entirely  of  Mr.  Rowell’s  view,  that  the 
conference  is  not  competent  and  has  not  the  power  to  do  so. 

The  third  point  which  I  wish  to  make  is  that  this  is  not  a  mere 
question  of  law.  I  think  that  there  has  been  some  tendency  to 
regard  it  as  a  technical  point  which  is  of  no  special  importance. 

I  wish  to  say  that  in  our  view,  though  it  is,  of  course,  a  question 
of  law,  it  is  not  a  mere  technicality.  It  is  a  question  of  principle, 
and  a  question  of  principle  which,  as  Mr.  Rowell  said,  strikes  at 
the  very  root  of  this  labor  organization.  It  tends  to  divorce  the 
labor  organization  from  the  League  of  Nations,  and  that,  in  our  opin¬ 
ion,  would  be  the  greatest  misfortune  which  could  befall  the  labor 
organization. 

Those  who  are  making  this  motion  are  taking  a  very  heavy  responsi¬ 
bility  when  they  propose  a  step  which  would  have  consequences 
which  it  is  impossible  to  foresee  at  the  present  moment.  It  may 
very  well  be  that  if  this  motion  were  accepted  it  would  be  the  first 
step  toward  a  separation  of  the  labor  organization  from  the  League 
of  Nations.  That  would  be  entirely  opposed  to  the  views  of  those 
who  had  framed  and  proposed  the  provisions  on  which  the  labor 
organization  is  founded  and  which  they  can  never  accept. 

My  next  point  would  be  a  point  which  has  already  been  made 
by  Mr.  Rowell,  which  I  only  desire  to  emphasize  in  passing:  That 
by  adopting  the  motion  which  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi  and 
his  supporters,  this  conference  would  be  running  the  very  serious 
risk  of  invalidating  its  proceedings.  Remember  this,  that  the 
decisions  of  this  conference  carry  with  them,  if  properly  taken, 
consequences  of  great  importance  under  the  treaty  of  peace.  The 


conventions,  if  adopted  by  the  States,  are  capable  of  being  enforced, 
but  in  order  that  those  provisions  should  apply  it  is  necessary  that  all 
the  proceedings  leading  up  to  the  adoption  of  the  conventions  must 
be  regular  and  in  order.  Any  step  which  is  invalid,  which  is  irregu¬ 
lar  in  those  proceedings,  will  invalidate  the  decisions  which  follow. 
That  is  a  consequence  of  very  serious  moment,  because  it  will  have 
weight  with  the  States  when  they  come  to  consider  whether  it  is 
possible  for  them  to  adopt  the  conventions  or  not.  There  must  be 
no  question  as  to  the  regularity,  as  to  the  legality,  of  the  proceedings 
in  this  conference,  if  the  conventions  are  to  be  adopted  by  the 
States  which  are  members  of  the  organization. 

I  say,  and  I  say  it  seriously,  that  the  Government  of  Great  Britain 
can  not  accept  the  proposal  which  is  being  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi 
for  the  admission  of  Finland  to  the  labor  organization  otherwise 
than  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  treaty.  If  Finland  wishes  to 
become  a  member  of  the  labor  organization,  she  must  first  become 
a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations.  We  can  not  accept  any  other 
interpretation.  And  if  the  conference  should  decide,  as  I  hope 
it  will  not,  this  afternoon  to  admit  Finland  to  the  labor  organiza¬ 
tion,  we  shall  question  that  decision,  and  we  shall  require  that  it 
be  referred  to  the  permanent  court  of  international  justice,  under 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty. 

To  resume  what  I  have  said,  this  motion  is  contrary,  if  not  to  the 
correct  interpretation  of  the  treaty,  at  any  rate  it  is  contrary  to 
what  was  understood  to  be  the  meaning  by  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain  and  many  other  powers.  This  motion  goes  beyond 
the  request  that  has  been  made  by  the  Government  of  Finland, 
and  goes  beyond  the  reference  which  has  been  made  to  this  con¬ 
ference  by  the  Supreme  Council  at  Paris.  It  is  not  a  mere  technical 
question.  It  is  not  a  mere  technicality.  It  is  a  question  of  prin¬ 
ciple  which  goes  to  the  very  root  of  labor  organization  and  may 
have  very  serious  consequences  on  the  proceedings  here  at  Wash¬ 
ington,  and  it  is  a  proposal  which  the  British  Government  for  one 
is  quite  unable  to  recognize. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione,  of  the  Italian 

delegation. 

Mr.  DI  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy— remarks  in  Italian): 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  say  in  the  most  positive 
manner  to  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  that  neither  he  nor  the  other 
members  of  that  committee  that  support  the  majority  report  wish 
in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  have  the  peace  treaty 
modified. 

Here,  we  are  only  discussing  the  proper  interpretation  to  be  given 
to  article  1  of  the  constitution  of  this  labor  organization  in  relation 
to  the  action  taken  by  the  Supreme  Council  of  Paris  in  referring 
certain  matters  to  this  body. 

The  motion  which  has  been  submitted  to-day  by  Mr.  Baldesi  has 
not  been  submitted  in  his  name.  It  is  not  his  personal  motion.  It 
is  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  committee  appointed  by  this 
meeting  to  settle  on  the  question  of  admission,  and  on  that  committee 
were  members — and  the  report  is  theirs  as  well  as  Mr.  Baldesi’s — Mr. 
Fontaine,  who  was  on  the  organizing  committee  of  this  body  in  Paris, 
and  Mr.  Collinet,  who  is  a  professor  of  law  in  the  University  of  Paris, 
and  their  opinions  are  entitled  to  as  much  respect  as  are  those  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  minority  report. 

We  are  face  to  face  with  a  verysimple  question,  Does  the  admis¬ 
sion  of  Germany  and  of  Austria  to  this  conference  constitute  a  pre¬ 
cedent  or  does  it  not? 

Mr.  Rowell  and  the  legal  adviser,  Mr.  Hudson,  maintain  that  the 
admission  of  Germany  and  of  Austria  does  not  constitute  a  precedent, 
because  before  the  signature  of  the  peace  treaty  they  had  received  a 
promise  to  the  effect  that  they  would  be  admitted. 

This  assertion  is  totally  inaccurate. 

The  Supreme  Council  had  to  pronounce  twice  on  this  question,  the 
first  time  as  to  the  admission  of  those  two  countries — Germany  and 
Austria — to  the  International  Labor  Organization,  and  the  second  time 
as  to  their  admission  to  the  International  Labor  Conference  here  at 
Washington. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


85 


On  botli  occasions  the  Supreme  Council  in  Paris  did  not  render  a 
decision  itself  but  on  both  occasions  it  referred  the  question  to  this 
conference  at  Washington  for  it  to  decide.  It  is,  therefore,  not  ac¬ 
curate  to  say  that  the  admission  of  Austria  and  of  Germany  does 
not  create  a  precedent,  because  it  was  given  as  a  promise  before  the 
signature  of  the  peace  treaty. 

If  the  conference  had  the  right  and  decided  on  the  admission 
of  Austria  and  of  Germany,  it  has  the  right  to  decide  on  the  admis¬ 
sion  of  any  other  country  that  makes  a  request.  And  that  for 
two  reasons:  First,  because  there  is  no  article  in  our  constitution 
which  forbids  this  body  from  admitting  a  country  which  makes 
demand  for  admission;  and  the  second  reason  is  that  by  its 
decision  this  conference  has  sanctioned  the  wider  interpretation  of 
the  first  article  of  its  constitution.  Mr.  Rowell  gave  his  vote  in  favor 
of  the  admission  of  Austria  and  of  Germany,  and  by  so  doing  he  also 
sanctioned  that  broader  interpretation,  and  he  is  therefore  now  con¬ 
tradicting  himself  when  he  votes  against  the  admission  of  Finland. 

If  we  now  make  it  imperative  that  membership  in  this  organiza¬ 
tion  can  only  be  consequent  on  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations, 
we  run  the  risk  of  making  membership  in  this  organization  subject 
to  considerations  of  a  political  nature. 

It  would  follow  from  such  an  interpretation  that  if  for  political 
reasons  any  nation  were  to  be  expelled  from  the  League  of  Nations, 
it  also  would  have  to  be  expelled  from  the  labor  organization. 

The  speaker  believes  that  he  interprets  the  feeling  and  intention 
of  many  of  the  delegations  which  cooperated  in  the  organization  in 
Paris  of  this  International  Labor  Organization;  that  it  was  their 
intention  that  all  political  character  should  be  excluded  from 
affecting  the  question  of  membership  in  this  International  Labor 
Organization. 

Mr.  Hudson,  in  his  remarks,  says  that  participation  in  this  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Organization  constitutes  a  privilege.  I  believe  in 
saying  this  he  gives  proof  of  his  American  humor,  for  I  can  not  see 
how  it  can  oe  interpreted  as  a  privilege  for  a  nation  to  bind  itself 
in  entering  this  International  Labor  Organization,  to  observe  the 
decisions  that  this  body  will  arrive  at. 

Membership  in  the  International  Labor  Organization  is  put  down 
as  a  duty,  not  as  a  privilege,  for  the  members  belonging  to  the  League 
of  Nations. 

What  reason,  then,  can  there  be  to  wish  to  turn  off  those  nations 
which  expressed  the  wish  voluntarily  to  assume  all  the  obligations 
that  are  incumbent  on  them  by  becoming  members  of  this  inter¬ 
national  labor  body? 

Our  organization  should  therefore  be  open  to  all  nations  which 
have  reached  that  degree  of  development  which  makes  them  feel 
their  responsibility  in  these  matters  we  are  discussing,  and  that 
membership  should  not  be  limited  eventually  in  any  way  by  terri¬ 
torial  or  colonial  considerations. 

Before  concluding,  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  contradiction 
into  which  those  persons  who  sustain  the  minority  hypothesis  fall; 
that  is,  that  the  delegates  of  Finland  can  not  be  admitted 
to  the  International  Labor  Organization  by  virtue  of  article  1  of 
its  constitution,  but  they  favor  at  the  same  time  that  they  should 
be  admitted  to  this  conference  without  a  right  to  vote.  Now,  he 
says,  what  article  of  the  constitution  is  there  which  gives  this  con¬ 
ference  the  power  to  do  anything  of  the  sort? 

There  are,  therefore,  only  two  alternatives  before  this  assembly; 
either  to  decide  that  no  country  can  be  a  member  of  this  organiza¬ 
tion  or  be  in  this  conference  without  being  a  member  of  the  League 
of  Nations — and  that  means  to  give  a  distinctly  political  character 
to  this  organization,  for  that  political  character  has  been  recognized 
by  Dr.  Hudson  as  to  the  League  of  Nations — or  else  to  say  that  only 
countries  in  which  the  working  classes  have .  reached  that  degree 
of  development  which  has  enabled  them  to  force  from  their  Gov¬ 
ernment  labor  legislation  have  a  right  to  be  represented  in  this 
body. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  hour  of  adjournment  has  arrived.  Is  it 
the  desire  of  the  conference  to  adjourn,  in  accordance  with  the 
rules,  or  to  remain  in  session  until  the  conclusion  of  this  debate? 


Mr.  CRAWFORD  ( South  Africa).  I  move  that  we  adjourn. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  conference  will  stand  adjourned  until 
2.30  o’clock  Thursday  afternoon. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.05  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Thursday,  November  13,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  A.  Delmer  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Michel  Levie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  M.  Fraipont  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Jules  Carlier). 

Canada: 

Mr.  Loring  C.  Christie  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons.) 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Czecho-  Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  TJrueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen.  # 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

France: 

Mr.  Tony  Raymond  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine). 

Mrs.  Letellier  (substitute  for  Mr.  Max 
Lazard). 

Mr.  P.  Collinet  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Louis  Guerin). 

Miss  Jeanne  Bouvier  (substitute  for 
Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux). 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Right  Hon.  C.  W.  Bowerman  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 
Mr.  Howard  Williams  (substitute  for 
Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuz^ne. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  J.  D.  F.  Engel  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Narayan  Malhar  Joshi). 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  AngioloCabrini). 


Italy— Concluded. 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Shichiro  Muto  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto). 

Netherlands: 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  (or  Mr 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zublreta. 
Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan 
Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazoo. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  J ozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos <5  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch 
Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smith. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  ErikM.  Sjoborg). 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Kocn. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 


86 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR 


CONFERENCE 


TWELFTH  SESSION— THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER  13,  1919. 


Tlie  conference  convened  at  2.40  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson, 
president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  order  of  business  is  the  continuation  of 
the  debate  on  the  admission  of  new  members.  Mr.  Fraipont,  of  the 
Belgian  delegation,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  FRAIPONT  (Belgium).  I  am  a  member  of  the  committee 
the  findings  of  which  are  now  under  discussion,  and  I  voted  to 
admit  Finland.  I  therefore  ask  permission  of  the  assembly  to 
explain  briefly  my  opinion  in  the  matter.  I  have  all  the  more 
reason  for  so  doing  as  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  accused  the  majority 
of  the  committee  of  provoking  a  split  between  the  League  of  Nations 
and  the  labor  organization. 

In  the  lengthy  discussion  which  took  place  here  yesterday  Finland 
was  relegated  to  the  mists  of  the  north.  The  question  brought  before 
the  conference  is  a  question  of  principle,  which  certainly  affects 
most  deeply  the  special  case  of  that  country.  The  question  can  be 
stated  in  these  terms:  Has  the  present  conference  the  right  to 
admit  to  the  labor  organization  a  nation  which  does  not  happen  to 
be  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations? 

Gentlemen,  if  the  League  of  Nations  were  legally  constituted  at 
this  moment,  the  question  would  not  arise,  according  to  my  way  of 
thinking.  Although  the  text  of  article  387  of  the  peace  treaty  does 
not  expressly  exclude  from  the  labor  organization  a  nation  which  is 
not  yet  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations  I  am  of  the  opinion  that 
the  two  institutions  were  closely  connected  in  the  minds  of  the 
authors  of  the  peace  treaty;  and  that  the  labor  organization  is  the 
first  manifestation  of  the  League  of  Nations.  On  that  account  the 
long  report  of  Hon.  Mr.  Rowell  is  a  highly  valuable  and  accurate 
document  which  greatly  impresses  me. 

At  a  meeting  in  Paris  of  the  commission  which  discussed  the 
organization  of  the  labor  congress,  I  asked  our  official  delegates  if 
the  labor  organization  was  to  be  formally  considered  as  a  body 
whose  existence  should  follow  the  creation  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
In  answer  I  was  informed  quite  positively  that  the  labor  organiza¬ 
tion  was  merely  a  part  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Whereupon  I 
observed  that  it  was  illogical  and  rash  to  convene  an  International 
Labor  Conference  before  the  League  of  Nations  had  been  legally 
constituted. 

My  suggestion  found  no  response.  In  the  peace  treaty  itself  the 
meeting  of  the  labor  conference  was  set  for  October,  1919,  in  the  hope 
that  the  League  of  Nations  would  be  legally  constituted  between 
spring  and  fall,  and  that  it  would  have  the  support  of  all  nations. 

This  hope  was  not  realized.  The  League  of  Nations  is  not  com¬ 
pletely  established  to-day,  and  the  conference  is  being  held  under 
abnormal  conditions.  This  anomaly  is  responsible  for  the  present 
difficulties. 

These  difficulties  presented  themselves  at  the  very  first  meetings 
in  connection  with  the  admission  of  Germany  and  Austria  to  this 
conference;  and  even  the  Supreme  Allied  Council  itself  has  been 
embarrassed  by  these  difficulties.  At  an  early  meeting  the  Supreme 
Council  declared  that  German  delegates  could  be  admitted  to  the 
labor  organization  on  completion  of  the  work  of  this  conference, 
signifying  quite  clearly  that  they  would  not  be  admitted  to  the 
deliberations  of  this  conference,  as  Germany  was  not  yet  admitted 
to  the  League  of  Nations.  Her  admission  to  the  one  organization  as 
well  as  to  the  other  was  delayed.  At  the  very  outset  of  this  confer¬ 
ence,  for  reasons  which  I  do  not  care  to  state  and  which  have  little 
bearing  on  the  present  debate,  the  Supreme  Council  decided  to  sub¬ 
mit  to  the  conference  itself  the  question  of  admitting  German  and 
Austrian  delegates  to  participation  in  the  debates  and  resolutions 
of  the  conference. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  decision  of  the  Supreme  Council  was  the 
consequence  of  a  convention  concluded  between  Germany  and 
Austria  on  one  hand  and  the  Allies  on  the  other.  It  may  be  that 
there  were  some  such  arrangements  between  the  Allies  and  their 


enemies,  but  I  would  not  recognize  these  negotiations  as  a  con¬ 
vention.  If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Allies  had  been  bound  to 
Germany  and  Austria  on  this  point,  the  Supreme  Council  would 
have  admitted  these  countries  de  piano  into  the  labor  organization, 
either  after  or  before  this  conference,  in  conformity  with  the  alleged 
convention,  and  this  conference  would  merely  have  been  called  upon 
to  take  notice  of  this  convention  and  the  formal  decision  of  the  Su¬ 
preme  Council.  But  nothing  of  the  kind  was  done.  The  Supreme 
Council  recognized  in  the  conference  itself  the  power  of  accepting  or 
refusing  participation  of  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates  in  the 
work  and  deliberations  of  the  conference.  In  what  country,  pray, 
is  the  execution  of  a  convention  between  two  parties  left  to  the 
judgment  of  a  third  party. 

Assuming  a  formal  convention  between  Germany,  Austria,  and 
the  Allies,  what  would  be  the  position  of  the  Supreme  Council  if  the 
conference  had  refused  to  admit  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates? 
And  it  could  do  that,  as  the  Supreme  Council  did  not  tie  its  hands  in 
any  way.  Hence  it  is  not  by  virtue  of  a  convention  that  Germany 
and  Austria  were  allowed  to  participate  in  our  labors,  but  by  virtue 
of  a  resolution  of  the  conference,  freely  adopted  and  passed  merely  at 
the  request  of  the  Supreme  Council.-  What,  then,  is  the  significance 
of  this  resolution  of  the  conference  and  this  request  of  the  Supreme 
Council?  Does  it  signify  that  both  of  them  wished  to  lay  down  the 
principle  that  the  labor  organization  is  separate  from  the  League  of 
Nations?  Does  it  signify  that,  contrary  to  the  spirit  if  not  the  letter 
of  the  peace  treaty,  the  conference  may  at  any  time  receive  nations 
into  the  labor  organization  which  have  not  become  members  of  the 
League  of  Nations?  I  think  not. 

In  order  to  pass  sound  judgment  upon  this  twofold  decision, 
account  must  be  taken  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  deci¬ 
sions  were  arrived  at,  namely,  the  abnormal  status  of  this  conference 
functioning  before  the  parent  organization,  the  League  of  Nations, 
could  be  put  into  operation.  The  whole  thing  is  an  expedient,  and 
it  must  be  regarded  as  an  expedient  necessitated  by  circumstances. 
In  the  face  of  the  rather  delicate  problem  of  the  functioning  of  the 
labor  organization  before  the  League  of  Nations  had  come  into  opera¬ 
tion,  the  Supreme  Council  and  the  conference  considered  it  an  oppor¬ 
tune  moment,  without  affecting  the  principle  of  the  union  of  the  two 
institutions,  to  admit  to  the  labor  organization,  provisionally  and  by 
force  of  circumstances,  nations  not  as  yet  members  of  the  League  of 
Nations.  In  this  respect,  the  admission  of  German  and  Austrian 
delegates  constitutes  a  precedent,  but  a  precedent  which  can  only 
be  applied  within  the  limits  of  the  present  circumstances,  and  can 
not  be  established  for  the  future,  when  the  League  of  Nations,  which  is 
one  with  the  labor  organization,  begins  to  function  along  with  it. 
And  it  is  within  these  narrow  limits  that  I  for  my  part  have  invoked 
this  precedent  in  favor  of  Finland. 

I  am  not  asking  the  conference  to  establish  the  principle  that  it 
has  the  right  under  all  circumstances  to  receive  delegates  to  this  or¬ 
ganization  from  countries  not  yet  members  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
To  my  way  of  thinking  that  would  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
peace  treaty.  I  ask  that  the  same  expedient  be  used  in  the  case  of 
Finland  that  has  been  employed  in  the  case  of  Germany  and  Austria, 
where  it  was  not  considered  necessary  to  refer  the  question  to  a 
special  committee. 

Sufficient  emphasis  has  not  been  given  to  the  fact  that  the  question 
of  the  admission  of  Finland  came  up  before  the  conference  under  the 
same  conditions  and  almost  in  the  same  terms  as  the'question  of  the 
admission  of  Germany  and  Austria. 

The  Supreme  Council  did  not  appeal  to  a  previous  convention  in 
the  case  of  Germany  and  Austria;  it  did  not  urge  special  consideration 
for  these  countries;  it  simply  acknowledged  as  belonging  to  the  con¬ 
ference  the  power  to  act  on  the  request  of  these  countries  because  of 
the  abnormal  circumstances  surrounding  the  functioning  of  the  con¬ 
ference  before  the  complete  organization  of  the  League  of  Nations. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


87 


The  Supreme  Council  did  not  act  differently  in  the  case  of  Finland. 
Following  are  the  terms  in  which  the  Supreme  Council  put  the  re¬ 
quest  made  by  Finland  before  the  conference: 

October  2,  1919. 

It  was  resolved  that  the  question  asked  by  the  secretary  general  of  the  International 
Labor  Commission,  relating  to  the  admission  of  Finland,  Norway ,  and  the  Netherlands 
to  the  conference  at  Washington  should  be  left  to  the  consideration  of  that  conference. 

Do  you  think  for  a  moment,  gentlemen,  if  the  admission  of  Finland 
could  be  considered  illegal,  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  peace  treaty,  if 
it  could  possibly  involve  a  split  between  the  League  of  Nations  and  the 
labor  organization,  that  the  Supreme  Council,  the  jealous  guardian 
and  executor  of  the  peace  treaty,  would  have  blithely  turned  over  to 
this  conference  such  a  nefarious  piece  of  work? 

It  must  at  least  be  recognized  that  if  such  a  split  could  result  from 
the  admission  of  Finland,  the  members  of  the  committee  are  not  the 
instigators  thereof,  but  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Council  them¬ 
selves.  You  will  not  accept  that  supposition  for  a  moment,  gentle¬ 
men.  so  little  flattering  to  the  eminent  personages  on  the  council. 

To  prove  to  you  that  the  members  of  the  committee  entertained  no 
such  dark  designs,  I  shall  reread  to  you  the  last  sentence  of  the  major¬ 
ity  report  which  followed  the  text  of  the  resolution. 

Following  is  the  significant  sentence  to  which  I  refer: 

The  majority  desire  to  be  added  to  these  resolutions  a  unanimous  expression  of 
opinion  that  allGovernmentsadheringtothelnternationa]  Labor  Organization  should 
be  urged  to  become  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  that  the  League  of  Nations 
should  be  urged  to  admit  as  effective  members  all  countries  making  such  application. 

Singular  supporters  of  divorce,  those  who  demand  an  immediate 
marriage  of  the  bethrothed,  and  are  still  waiting  for  the  consent  of 
the  family  council. 

No,  gentlemen,  there  is  no  necessity  for  interpreting  the  resolution 
of  the  majority  of  the  committee  as  a  sacrilegious  piece  of  work  en¬ 
dangering  the  solidarity  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  the  labor  organ¬ 
ization. 

I  admit  that  the  text  of  the  resolution  is  perhaps  couched  in  rather 
final  terms,  which  might  give  rise  to  the  belief  that  we  desired  to 
prejudice  the  future.  The  principle  remains  intact.  We  have 
no  intention  of  prejudicing  the  future  powers  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  when  it  shall  be  called  upon  to  function  in  harmony  with  the 
League  of  Nations.  But  inasmuch  as  it  is  functioning  alone  for  the 
time  being,  and  because  of  this  exceptional  and  temporary  situation, 
the  Supreme  Council  requested  us  in  the  same  terms  to  act  on  the  re¬ 
quest  of  Finland  as  we  had  already  done  on  the  requests  of  Germany 
and  Austria.  In  order  to  make  our  resolutions  more  effective  and  more 
far  reaching,  let  us  give  the  same  treatment  to  those  who  ask  their 
admission  in  good  faith  as  evidenced  by  accepting,  in  the  words  of 
the  resolution,  not  only  the  rights  but  also  the  financial  and  social 
obligations  involved  in  such  admission. 

Finland  did  not  ask  to  come  to  this  conference  as  if  it  were  a  spec¬ 
tacle,  to  listen  to  eloquent  speeches  in  all  tongues,  but  in  order  to  take 
part  in  our  labors  and  to  submit  to  the  decisions  reached,  not  only 
with  the  same  rights  as  Germany  and  Austria,  but  with  the  same 
rights  as  the  13  nations  here  represented,  which  do  not  as  yet  happen 
to  be  active  members  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Let  us  not  inflict  on 
Finland  the  humiliation  of  discriminating  against  her.  She  has  been 
waiting  in  the  anteroom  for  nearly  two  weeks  now,  and  it  is  high  time 
to  open  to  her  the  portals  of  the  hall  in  which  we  are  conducting  our 
deliberations. 

Inasmuch  as  no  one  here  is  hostile  to  Finland,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
question  of  principle  affects  only  part  of  the  members  of  this  assembly, 

I  ask  them  to  rally  to  the  support  of  the  majority  resolution  of  the 
committee.  In  order  to  satisfy  their  scruples  I  propose  to  amend  the 
resolution  of  the  majority  by  writing  the  last  paragraph  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  under  present  conditions  any  State  making  formal  application  can 
be  admitted  to  the  Internationa]  Labor  Organization. 

If  this  wording  fails  to  satisfy  the  opponents  of  this  resolution,  I 
propose  to  make  a  motion,  either  before  or  afterwards,  in  the  form  of 
an  amendment,  to  the  effect  that  this  resolution,  dictated  by  circum¬ 
stances,  shall  in  no  way  affect  the  powers  of  the  conference  when  it 
functions  normally  in  harmony  with  the  League  of  Nations. 


I,  for  my  part,  will  subscribe  to  this  motion,  and  I  think  that  the 
great  majority  of  this  assembly  will  subscribe  thereto,  thus  indors¬ 
ing  the  proposition  so  brilliantly  supported  by  Hon.  Mr.  Rowell. 
We  will  receive  Finland  in  conformity  with  the  majority  resolution 
of  the  committee,  on  the  same  footing  as  that  accorded  Germany  and 
Austria,  not  by  virtue  of  an  exception  to  the  peace  treaty,  not  by 
virtue  of  an  interpretation  of  the  principle  of  the  treaty,  but  by 
reason  of  the  special  circumstances  under  which  the  conference  has 
to  function  before  the  normal  functioning  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
Thus  the  two  apparently  contradictory  opinions  will  coincide,  and 
the  conference  will  comply  with  the  request  made  by  the  Supreme 
Allied  Council  without  making  use  of  two  different  weights  and 
measures,  i.  e.,  without  revoking  any  precedents. 

I  venture  to  hope  that  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  whose  sagacity  I 
fully  appreciate,  and  Hon.  Newton  Rowell,  who  has  so  eloquently 
championed  the  union  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  the  labor  organi¬ 
zation,  will  come  over  to  this  way  of  thinking. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Espil,  of  Argentina,  is  recognized. 

Dr.  ESPIL  (Argentina — remarks  in  Spanish).  On  behalf  of  the 
Argentine  Government’s  delegation,  I  wish  to  state  the  reasons 
which  decided  our  vote  on  the  question  of  admission  of  Finland  to 
the  International  Labor  Organization.  This  statement  is  neces¬ 
sary  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  are  voting  in  favor  of  the 
minority’s  report,  and  the  decision  contained  in  this  report  is  in 
appearance  restrictive  and  exceptional,  therefore  requiring  an 
explanation. 

The  unusual  extent  to  which  this  debate  has  been  carried  on,  and 
the  great  general  interest  that  it  has  awakened,  show  that  the  real 
issue  is  not  the  admission  of  any  country  in  particular,  but  the  defi¬ 
nition  and  the  very  existence  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

The  status  of  Finlartd  is  not,  to  any  appreciable  degree,  modified 
by  the  minority  decision.  With  the  exception  of  a  right  to  vote,  the 
representatives  of  Finland  may  participate  in  all  the  proceedings  and 
discussions,  may  be  appointed  members  of  any  committee,  and  when 
any  suggestion,  report,  or  draft  convention  has  been  adopted,  they 
may  submit  that  to  their  Government,  and  the  latter,  within  a  cer¬ 
tain  period  of  time,  may  in  turn  submit  it  to  the  proper  authorities 
in  that  country  who  may  either  accept  or  reject  the  proposition  with¬ 
out  becoming  liable  for  breach  of  obligations. 

Therefore,  at  the  present  moment,  the  position  that  Finland  occu¬ 
pies  in  the  organization  is  not  impaired,  lessened,  or  made  worse  if 
the  decision  of  the  minority  is  carried. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  majority  report  is  adopted,  without  in  any 
appreciable  degree  benefiting  Finland,  we  would  pass  on  a  very 
serious  question  touching  the  very  essence  of  the  League  of  Nations, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  efficiency,  prestige,  and  influence  of  the 
league,  depriving  it  of  one  of  its  most  important  attributes. 

To  adopt  the  majority  report  means  a  declaration  of  the  principle 
that  it  is  possible  to  be  a  member  of  this  International  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation  or  to  cease  to  be  a  member,  at  will,  and  without  the  prerequi¬ 
site  of  being  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

Nobody  can  fail  to  realize  that  at  this  moment,  when  the  majority 
of  the  countries  of  the  world  do  not  yet  form  part  of  this  covenant, 
when  the  general  sentiment  agrees  on  the  necessity  of  rapidly  consti¬ 
tuting  and  consolidating  this  covenant,  the  best  argument  that  can 
be  brought  forth  to  secure  this  end  is  the  formation  of  this  conference 
and  the  good  results  which  may  follow  from  it.  This  conference  is 
the  first  manifest  result  and  the  first  concrete  and  practical  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  new  international  political  organization. 

Should  we  now  declare  that  this  labor  organization  is  autonomous 
and  independent  from  the  political  organization,  then  we  deprive 
the  latter  of  one  of  its  best  elements  of  prestige,  and  create  indifference 
toward  the  league  by  divorcing  and  separating  its  fate  from  that  of 
the  labor  organization. 

The  small  powers  like  our  country  can  not  view  with  indifference 
the  endangered  fate  of  the  League  of  Nations,  on  whose  future  the 
inviolability  of  their  territories  and  the  peace  of  their  independent 
existence  depend;  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  the  Argentine  delega- 


88 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


tion  consider  themselves  bound  by  their  duty  to  vote  as  they  have, 
and  believe  that  by  doing  so  they  give  further  evidence  of  their 
enthusiastic  adherence  to  the  new  international  political  organiza¬ 
tion. 

Viewing  the  matter  from  a  different  standpoint,  whatever  the  cor¬ 
rect  interpretation  of  article  387  of  the  treaty  of  peace  may  be,  it 
is  well  to  remember  that  the  composition  and  wording  of  these  clauses 
were  intrusted  by  the  Peace  Conference  to  a  special  commission  which 
submitted  their  draft  on  March  24,  1919,  together  with  an  explana¬ 
tion  of  their  work.  In  this  explanation  it  is  stated  that  the  first  part, 
in  which  article  387  is  included,  was  worded  on  the  basis  of  a  draft 
presented  by  the  British  delegation,  formed  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Barnes 
and  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  both  of  whom  are  now  present  at  this 
conference.  Therefore,  the  views  of  the  British  delegation  on  this 
subject  are  worthy  of  special  consideration,  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  after  hearing  the  statements  made  yesterday  by  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne,  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is,  at  least,  a  very  serious 
doubt  with  regard  to  the  interpretation  of  article  387  of  the  treaty, 
which  this  conference  can  not  ignore. 

Article  423  states  that  any  similar  case  of  doubt  must  be  referred 
to  tlie  permanent  court  of  international  justice,  and  in  its  absence, 
not  to  the  Supreme  Council,  as  somebody  has  suggested,  but  to  a 
tribunal  of  three  persons  appointed  by  the  council  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  as  provided  in  article  426. 

In  short,  the  views  of  the  .‘Argentine  delegation  could  be  embodied 
in  the  well-known  symbol  of  lawyers  who  have  represented  justice 
as  bearing  a  sword  in  one  hand  and  a  pair  of  scales  in  the  other.  The 
sword  without  the  scales  would  be  brute  force,  while  the  scales 
without  the  sword  would  be  illusory  right,  impotent,  and  without 
strength  to  bind.  We  also  wish  to  represent  international  justice 
from  the  outset  as  the  Greek  goddess  Themis,  with  the  scales  to 
administer  justice,  but  also  with  the  power  to  make  her  work  effective 
and  not  leave  it  hidden  in  the  shadows  of  impotence.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Christie,  of  the  Canadian  delegation,  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  CHRISTIE  (substitute  for  Mr.  Rowell,  Canada).  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  in  the  unavoidable  absence  of  Mr.  Rowell  I  rise  to  make  a  brief 
statement  and  proposal,  which  I  hope  will  result  in  a  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  question  now  before  the  conference. 

At  the  conclusion  of  his  remarks  yesterday,  Judge  Castberg,  Gov¬ 
ernment  delegate  from  Norway,  threw  out  the  suggestion  that  the 
resolution  proposed  by  the  minority  report  of  the  committee  on 
applications  for  admission  would  be  acceptable  if,  without  mention¬ 
ing  the  International  Labor  Organization,  there  were  added  to  the 
second  part  of  the  resolution  some  words  to  the  effect  that  the  dele¬ 
gates  of  Finland  should  be  admitted  simply  to  the  conference  on  the 
same  conditions  as  obtain  in  the  case  of  many  other  countries  repre¬ 
sented  here. 

On  behalf  of  Mr.  Rowell  I  am  happy  to  accept  this  suggestion. 
Accordingly  I  propose  that  there  should  be  added  to  the  resolution 
submitted  by  Mr.  Rowell  in  his  minority  report  the  following  words: 

On  the  same  conditions  as  obtain  in  the  case  oi  other  countries  which  have  not 
adhered  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

In  this  form  the  resolution  will  secure  the  practical  object  on  which 
we  are  all  agreed,  so  far  as  Finland  is  concerned,  and  at  the  same 
time  will  not  prejudice  the  constitutional  foundation  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Organization,  nor  cast  any  unfortunate  doubts  in 
any  quarter  upon  the  validity  of  its  action.  The  resolution  in  this 
form  is  the  more  confidently  commended  to  the  approval  of  the  con¬ 
ference  because,  as  I  am  authorized  to  say ,  it  is  in  accordance  with 
the  desire  of  the  delegates  from  Finland.  I  have  hope  also  that  it 
will  now  prove  acceptable  to  the  conference. 

In  conclusion,  I  shall  read  the  resolution  as  it  will  appear  with 
the  addition  of  the  words  already  proposed  and  with  the  slight  omis¬ 
sions.  In  this  form  I  consider  that  it  is  preferable  to  the  amended 
majority  report  just  proposed  by  Mr.  Fraipont. 

The  revised  resolution  is  as  follows: 


RESOLUTION  CONCERNING  THE  REQUEST  OF  FINLAND  FOR  ADMISSION  TO  THF.  INTER¬ 
NATIONAL  LABOR  ORGANIZATION. 

1.  In  view  of  the  opinion  of  the  legal  adviser  of  the  conference  that  admission  to 
membership  in  the  International  Labor  Organization  can  only  be  secured  through 
membership  in  the  League  of  Nations,  and  that  the  conference  itself  has  no  power  to 
grant  membership  in  the  labor  organization;  in  view  also  of  the  action  of  the  Supreme 
Council  in  submitting  the  question  of  Finland’s  admission  to  the  judgment  of  the 
conference,  the  conference  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  immediate  admission  of  Finland 
as  a  member  of  the  labor  organization  is  desirable,  and  the  conference  commends, 
therefore,  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  League  of  Nations  the  immediate  ad¬ 
mission  of  Finland  to  the  league  upon  her  compliance  with  the  necessary  conditions. 

2.  The  conference  welcomes  the  delegates  nominated  by  Finland  to  attend  the 
Washington  meeting,  and  invites  these  delegates  to  take  part  in  the  conference  on 
the  same  conditions  as  obtain  in  the  case  of  other  countries  which  have  not  adhered 
to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning,  of  Great  Britain, 
is  recognized. 

Mr.  STUART-BUNNING  (Great  Britain).  The  argument  against 
the  majority  report  is  that  if  we  admit  Finland,  something  irregular 
will  have  been  done  which  might  easily  spoil,  if  not  ruin,  the  whole 
of  our  work.  That  argument  would  be  of  very  great  strength  and 
weight  indeed  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  we  have  admitted  Ger¬ 
many  and  Austria.  And  no  amount  of  juggling  with  words,  and  no 
ingenuity  will  do  away  with  the  fact  that  we  have  admitted  Germany 
and  Austria.  That  being  so,  the  argument  of  irregularity,  so  far  as 
Finland  is  concerned,  entirely  fails,  for  if  any  mischief  is  to  be  done 
it  has  been  done  already.  Moreover,  if  we  refuse  to  accept  the 
majority  report  we  lay  ourselves  open  to  the  worst  possible  reproach 
which  this  conference  can  be  open  to.  We  lay  ourselves  open  to  the 
reproach  that  because  -Germany  and  Austria  are  great,  powerful 
nations,  and  formidable  competitors  we  have  admitted  them  irreg¬ 
ularly,  but  because  Finland  is  a  small  nation  we  have  kept  it  out. 
[Applause.] 

I  suggest  to  this  conference  that  is  a  reproach  which  we  can  not 
afford  to  incur.  I  would  not,  however,  have  arisen  to  speak  were  it 
not  for  the  speech  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  yesterday,  wherein  he 
stated  that  if  the  Baldesi  report  were  accepted  the  British  Govern¬ 
ment  would  certainly  appeal  to  a  higher  court.  I  do  not  want  to 
accuse  Sir  Malcolm  of  threatening  this  conference,  but  certainly  his 
words  are  capable  of  that  interpretation,  and  I  want  to  protest 
against  threats  from  any  delegate,  whether  of  Government,  em¬ 
ployer,  or  labor,  being  uttered  in  this  conference.  Language  of  that 
kind  is  exceedingly  unfortunate  and  may  easily  destroy  the  amity 
which  is  the  very  keynote  of  our  success.  Then  Sir  Malcolm  went 
on  to  sav,  though  probably  this  was  a  elip,  that  he  was  speaking  for 
the  British  Government  and  the  British  delegation.  He  was  cer¬ 
tainly  not  speaking  for  that  part  of  the  British  delegation  which  is 
represented  by  labor,  which  intends  to  vote  for  the  Baldesi  report. 
[Applause.] 

It  has  been  stated  on  more  than  one  occasion  that  we  are  dis¬ 
cussing  a  question  of  principle,  but  I  suggest  to  you  that  the  principle 
is  being  overlaid  with  matters  of  legal  and  technical  detail.  What 
is  the  principle  which  ought  to  guide  this  conference?  It  is  surely 
the  principle  of  admitting  every  nation  possible  to  its  deliberations 
and  with  full  powers,  and  not  the  principle  of  excluding  every 
nation  possible.  Sir  Malcolm  again  appears  to  be  proceeding  upon 
the  latter  assumption  and  excluding  nations  which  do  not  come 
within  the  four  corners  of  an  exceedingly  rigid  constitution.  Now, 
I  submit  that  is  not  the  correct  principle,  and  I  again  refer  to  the 
fact  that  Austria  and  Germany  have  been  admitted.  Mr.  Rowell 
said,  or  Mr.  Rowell  suggested,  rather,  that  Finland  might  be  treated 
in  the  same  way  as  the  United  States.  I  submit  that  there  is  no 
analogy’  between  the  two  cases.  We  unanimously,  with  the  consent 
of  Mr.  Rowell,  with  the  consent  of  everybody,  invited  the  United 
States  to  take  part  in  this  debate,  as  far  as  it  could,  but  we  had 
before  us  no  request  from  the  United  States  Government  for  reasons 
beyond  our  control,  and  presumably  beyond  their  control,  but  we 
had  no  request  from  them,  we  had  no  delegates  from  them.  We 
have  a  request  from  the  Finnish  Government,  and  we  have  their 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


89 


delegates  here.  There  is,  therefore,  in  my  opinion,  no  analogy 
between  the  two  cases,  and  the  question  we  have  to  decide  is  not 
whether  Finland  should  be  admitted  with  an  inferior  status  but 
whether  it  should  be  admitted  with  full  powers  or  not  admitted 
at  all. 

It  was  also  stated  yesterday  by  Sir  Malcolm  that  we  were  going 
beyond  or  would  be  going  beyond  the  request  of  the  Finnish  Govern¬ 
ment  if  we  admitted  them  with  full  powers,  and  he  based  that  upon 
the  fact  that  they  had  applied  for  admission  to  this  conference.  I 
do  not  know  how  Sir  Malcolm  arrived  at  his  conclusions,  or  at 
least  I  can  only  offer  one  suggestion.  When  you  take  a  ride  on  the 
American  railway  cars  you  pay  for  admission  to  the  car  and  then 
you  pay  extra  for  your  parlor  seat,  and,  apparently,  Sir  Malcolm  was 
so  filled  with  admiration  for  that  principle  that  he  wanted  to  apply 
it  to  the  proceedings  of  this  conference;  but  I  do  submit  that  there 
is  nothing  whatever  in  the  wording  of  the  convention  or  in  the 
wording  of  any  of  our  standing  orders  which  justifies  him  in  doing 
anything  of  the  kind. 

I  want,  however,  to  come  back  to  the  one  point  of  principle  which 
I  endeavor  to  make,  which  is  that  it  is  our  duty  to  bring  in  every 
nation  which  we  can  legitimately.  I  admit  the  point  of  the  argu¬ 
ment  with  regard  to  whether  we  can  legitimately  do  it  or  not,  but 
that  question  has  been  settled  by  our  own  conduct. 

It  was  mentioned  yesterday,  or  talked  of  yesterday,  as  though 
membership  in  this  conference  was  a  great  and  blessed  gift  showered 
upon  the  particularly  favored  nation  which  might  happen  to  get  it. 
I  entirely  agree.  It  is  a  blessing  which  blesseth  him  that  gives  as 
well  as  him  that  takes.  We  are  not  asking  any  nation  to  join  this 
particular  assembly  entirely  for  that  nation’s  benefit.  We  are  ask¬ 
ing  it  to  join  in  order  that  we  may  set  up  a  comity  of  nations,  and 
because  of  that  principle  I  am  going  to  vote,  as  the  British  labor 
delegate,  in  favor  of  the  Baldesi  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  from  Ecuador,  Dr. 
Garcia. 

Dr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  Mr.  President,  I  move  to  close  the 
discussion.  We  have  been  here  three  weeks;  we  have  not  finished 
with  the  first  point  of  the  agenda.  We  are  going  to  be  here  for  five 
or  six  months  to  end  the  whole  work.  This  point  is  very  important, 
but  we  have  heard  already  the  opinions  of  both  sides.  One  side 
maintains  that  the  matter  is  absolutely  technical,  and  has  been  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  representatives  of  Great  Britain,  who  have  more 
strongly  and  emphatically  declared  that  they  can  not  accept  the 
League  of  Nations  as  separated  in  practice  from  the  labor  organiza¬ 
tion.  We  have  heard  the  arguments  of  the  other  side,  some  of  them 
sentimental,  some  of  them  stating  that  the  labor  organization  must 
not  be  political  and  must  be  divorced,  to  a  certain  extent,  from 
the  League  of  Nations. 

I  think  we  have  heard  everything  pertaining  to  this  very  impor¬ 
tant  matter;  and  if  I  have  support,  I  move  to  close  the  discussion, 
so  that  we  may  continue  with  something  else  and  go  home  by  the 
middle  of  next  year.  [Laughter.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  state  for  the  information  of  the  con¬ 
ference,  before  putting  Dr.  Garcia’s  motion,  that  the  Chair  is  advised 
that  an  agreement  has  been  reached  between  the  majority  and  the 
minority,  and,  without  objections,  Mr.  Baldesi  will  be  recognized 
to  move  the  amendment  that  constitutes  the  agreement  between 
the  majority  and  the  minority? 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  After  Mr.  Baldesi  has  made  his  remarks, 
will  that  close  the  debate? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Thank  you. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Baldesi,  of  the  Italian  delegation. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian):  A  motion  has  now 
been  substituted  by  Mr.  Christie  on  behalf  of  the  minority  with 
wliieh  the  majority  can  agree,  with  certain  alterations  which  I  will 
suggest;  but  before  offering  them  I  would  like  to  say  one  or  two 
words  in  closing  this  discussion,  because  this  debate  will  certainly 


remain  in  the  annals  of  the  work  of  this  conference,  as  it  has  dealt 
with  a  question  of  great  importance. 

The  acquiescence  of  the  minority  in  the  admission  of  Finland 
destroys  the  arguments  that  were  brought  forward  yesterday,  on  the 
grounds  that  such  admission  was  not  permissible,  and  therefore  I 
thinks  that  this  constitutes  the  recognition  of  the  right  of  admittance 
to  this  body. 

It  was  stated  yesterday  that  Germany  and  Austria  had  been 
admitted  to  this  meeting  because  there  was  a  previous  understanding 
with  those  countries  on  that  subject  before  the  peace  treaty  was 
signed,  but  the  fact  that  their  admission  was  referred  to  this  confer¬ 
ence  shows  that  that  argument  does  not  hold  good,  because  if  they 
had  been  admitted  as  the  result  of  a  previous  agreement  there  was 
then  no  call  for  submitting  the  question  to  this  assembly  at  all. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  call  the  attention  of  the  representa¬ 
tive  to  the  fact  that  the  motion  to  close  debate  had  been  made  and 
that  it  was  only  upon  the  understanding  that  an  agreement  had  been 
reached  between  the  majority  and  the  minority  that  the  represen¬ 
tative  from  Italy  was  recognized,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  con¬ 
tinuing  debate  upon  the  subject? 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian):  I  thought  that  the 
custom  here  would  be  the  same  as  it  is  in  the  Parliament  in  my 
country,  where  the  reporter  always  has  the  right  to  the  closing 
remarks  in  a  debate.  But  I  accept  the  ruling  of  the  Chair  and  on 
behalf  of  the  majority  I  may  state  that  they  will  accept  the  motion 
submitted  by  Mr.  Christie,  with  these  amendments,  namely,  that  the 
first  part  be  struck  out,  and  that  the  second  part  be  adopted  as 
follows  with  the  addition  of  the  words  which  I  will  now  read: 
“without  passing  on  the  question  of  principle.” 

It  would  therefore  read  as  follows: 

The  conference,  without  passing  on  the  question  of  principle,  welcomes 
the  delegates  nominated  by  Finland  to  attend  the  Washington  meeting,  and  invites 
these  delegates  to  take  part  in  the  conference  on  the  same  conditions  as  obtain  in  the 
case  of  other  countries  which  have  not  adhered  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  will  recur  upon  the  adoption  of 
the  proposition  just  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi. 

As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  that  proposition  will  signify  the 
same  by  raising  their  right  hands  and  keeping  them  raised  until 
counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  raise  their  right  hands. 

Agreed  to  unanimously.  [Applause.] 

Dr.  Garcia,  of  Ecuador,  is  recognized. 

Dr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  We  have  been  discussing  the  matter 
now  for  a  day  and  a  half,  not  on  account  of  the  problem  of  Finland, 
but  to  decide  in  what  way  the  nations  are  to  be  admitted  into  the 
labor  conference.  The  important  point  is  for  the  conference  to 
know  how  the  nations  are  going  to  be  accepted  into  the  conference. 
That  is  the  important  point.  That  is  the  point  we  are  here  dis¬ 
cussing. 

Now,  after  accepting  Finland  on  the  terms  upon  which  we  have 
just  now  done,  I  move  that  the  conference,  having  closed  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  point,  decide  also  the  other  part  of  the  proposition — 
whether  the  nations  are  to  be  accepted  into  the  labor  conference 
through  the  door  of  the  League  of  Nations  or  shall  they  make  appli¬ 
cation  directly  to  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  conference 
for  the  Chair  for  a  few  minutes  in  connection  with  this  academic 
question  which  you  have  been  dealing  with  for  the  past  two  days? 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  is  not  a  self- 
constituted  body;  it  is  a  body  created  by  the  treaty  of  peace  and 
can.  have  no  powers  other  than  those  that  are  conferred  upon  it  by 
that  treaty.  It  should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  treaty  itself 
provides  a  method  by  which  disputes  as  to  the  powers  of  this  body 
can  be  determined,  yet  that  method  can  not  be  exercised  until 
there  has  been  a  League  of  Nations  created.  Until  the  League  of 


90 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Nations  has  been  created,  this  body  must  assume  the  responsibility 
of  interpreting  for  itself  what  its  powers  are,  taking  the  chance  of 
having  its  interpretation  of  its  powers  reversed  by  the  constituted 
authority  when  it  comes  into  existence.  I  make  the  statement  at 
this  time  because  of  the  fact  that  this  conference  is  not  a  thoroughly 
organized  conference.  We  have  admitted  certain  nations  to  repre¬ 
sentation  here  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  we  were  but  in  the  process 
of  organization.  When  that  process  is  completed  and  the  League 
of  Nations  is  created,  then  if  any  one  of  the  representatives  of  this 
body  questions  the  right  of  any  nation  to  be  represented  in  this 
body  and  denies  that  it  can  be  represented  in  accordance  with  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  then  that  dispute  can  be  taken  at 
that  time  to  the  properly  constituted  authorities  for  adjudication. 
In  the  meantime  the  sole  power  and  the  sole  responsibility  of  inter¬ 
preting  the  law  must  rest  with  this  body. 

The  motion  made  by  Dr.  Garcia  is  that  the  first  part  of  the  reso¬ 
lution  of  the  minority  that  was  stricken  out  be  adopted. 

Dr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  To  be  voted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  “I  move  to  vote  that  the  first  part  of  the 
resolution  of  the  minority  that  has  been  stricken  out  ”  is  the  motion. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman,  realizing  the  importance 
of  the  statement  just  made  by  you  regarding  the  status  of  this  con¬ 
ference,  I  would  like  to  ask  this:  In  your  opinion,  can  the  delibera¬ 
tions  of  this  conference  be  reviewed  and  its  action  rejected,  amended, 
or  adopted  by  the  League  of  Nations  when  it  is  constituted? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No.  Whenever  a  question  of  dispute  arises 
in  connection  with  the  terms  of  this  part  of  the  treaty,  that  dispute 
may  be  adjusted  by  a  committee  of  three  under  the  terms  of  article 
426;  may  be  passed  upon  by  a  commission  of  three  appointed  by  the 
Supreme  Council,  until  there  is  created  an  international  court  of 
justice.  When  the  international  court  of  justice  is  created,  then 
whatever  disputes  may  occur  as  to  the  interpretation  of  this  part 
of  the  treaty  would  be  referred  to  that  international  court  of  justice. 
That  is  all. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Cases  in  dispute. 

The  PRESIDENT.  And  this  that  you  have  been  discussing  would 
constitute  a  question  of  the  interpretation  of  that  part  of  the  treaty, 
and  if  there  was  a  dispute  in  connection  with  it,  if  anybody  raised 
the  question  after  the  League  of  Nations  had  been  created,  then  at 
that  time  and  under  those  circumstances,  the  dispute  could  be 
carried  to  the  international  court  of  justice.  For  the  present,  no 
such  international  court  exists,  and  because  no  such  international 
court  exists,  this  body  must  assume  its  own  responsibility  of  making 
its  own  interpretation. 

The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  motion  made  by  Dr.  Garcia 
is  not  in  order.  The  amendment  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi  to  the  motion 
or  substitute  offered  by  Mr.  Rowell — or  rather  the  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  Christie,  Mr.  Rowell’s  substitute — struck  out  all  of 
the  first  section  and  prefixed  the  following  language  to  the  second 
section:  “without  giving  a  ruling  on  the  question  of  principle.” 
The  motion  of  Dr.  Garcia  undertakes  to  give  a  ruling  on  the  question 
of  principle  which  the  conference  has  just  passed  upon,  and  conse¬ 
quently  the  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  motion  of  Dr.  Garcia  is 
not  in  order. 

Dr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  Mr.  President,  I  have  sent  word  that  I 
have  withdrawn  tho  motion  on  account  of  your  decision.  My  desire 
has  been  to  find  out  what  was  the  way  to  come  into  the  labor  con¬ 
ference,  as  the  thing  has  been  entirely  sidetracked  by  the  agreed 
report  of  both  the  majority  and  the  minority.  But  as  you  have 
decided  already,  and,  to  my  understanding,  very  wisely,  that  any 
dispute  must  be  decided  by  the  committee  of  three,  I  thought  that 
the  matter  was  ended  and  I  sent  word  up  to  you  that  I  have  with¬ 
drawn  my  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  Dr.  Garcia  is  withdrawn. 

The  secretary  will  read  correspondence. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Crawford. 


Mr.  CRAWFORD.  Could  I  submit  a  motion  in  connection  with 
this  matter?  In  order  to  avoid  a  recurrence  of  this  discussion  which 
has  occupied  two  days,  I  beg  to  move  the  following  resolution: 

That  the  attention  of  the  League  of  Nations,  when  created,  be  drawn  to  the  records 
of  the  discussion  on  the  application  of  Finland  for  admission  to  membership  in  the 
International  Labor  Conference,  with  a  request  that  an  interpretation  be  given  of 
the  powers  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  in  respect  to  the  admission  of 
nations  not  members  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Further,  that  in  the  event  of  the 
decision  of  the  league  being  unfavorable  to  the  view  expressed  in  the  majority  report 
submitted  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  an  appeal  be  made  to  the  permanent  court  of  international 
justice,  when  same  is  created. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Craw¬ 
ford  will  be  printed  for  consideration  at  the  next  session. 

The  secretary  advises  me  that  he  has  a  telegram  that  should  be 
read  to  the  conference  before  adjournment. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  Austrian  delegation  at 
Paris  has  communicated  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  the 
following  telegram: 

Although  it  is  not  possible  for  the  Austrian  Government  to  send  its  own  repre¬ 
sentatives  to  the  labor  conference,  for  known  reasons,  the  Austrian  Government 
follows  with  the  greatest  interest  the  progress  of  this  conference  in  its  work  for  the 
benefit  of  humanity,  and  the  Austrian  Government  begs  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  transmit  to  the  labor  conference  at  Washington  its  best  wishes 
for  the  final  success  of  the  conference. 

The  commission  of  the  Austrian  trade-unions  adhere  fully  to  this  declaration  of 
the  Austrian  Government. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  the  conference  will  stand 
adjourned  until  2.30  o’clock  on  Monday  afternoon.  Hearing  none, 
it  is  so  ordered. 

[Whereupon,  at  4.55  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Monday,  November  17,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  A.  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ernest  Mahaim). 

Mr.  Guillaume  Solau  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Corneille  Mertens). 

Mr.  Marcel  Fraipont  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  II.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Mr.  Loring  C.  Christie  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell.) 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons). 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munlzaga  Varela. 

Mr.  F.  N.  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 


France: 

Mr.  Tony  Reymond  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine). 

Mrs.  Letellier,  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Max  Lazard). 

Mr.  P.  Collinet  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Louis  Gudrin). 

Mr.  Dumoulin  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Lon  Jouhaux). 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  Howard  Williams  (substitute 
for  Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelas  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzfcnc. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  J.  D.  F.  Engel  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw;  Mr. 
Atul  Chandra  Chatterjec). 

Mr.  Alexander  Rol>ertson  Murray. 
Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  E.  Kamada. 

Mr.  K.  Kiga  (substitute  for  Dr. 
Minopu  Oka). 

Mr.  I.  Nakahara  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Sanji  Muto). 

Mr.  Shichiro  Muto  (substitute  of 
Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto). 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


91 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  P.  Serrarens  (substitute  for  Mr. 
J.  Oudegeest). 

Norway: 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Tcigen  (substitute  (or  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Kahn. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Kahn. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Fastizbowski  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Jan  Zagleniczny). 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Mr.  Jos6  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerdo. 


Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 
Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.Dominici. 


Washington,  D.  C., 
Saturday,  November  15,  1919. 
The  conference  was  not  in  session  to-day. 

The  following  letter  has  been  addressed  to  chairmen  of  committees 
by  direction  of  the  committee  of  selection: 


Dear  Sir:  The  committee  of  selection  had  under  discussion  this  morning  the 
future  program  for  the  work  of  the  conference.  As  several  delegations  have  made 
arrangements  to  leave  America  on  December  3,  and  some  at  an  even  earlier  date,  it 
was  decided  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to  bring  the  work  of  the  conference  to 
a  conclusion  by  November  29. 

If  this  end  is  to  be  achieved  it  is  essential  that  the  reports  of  committees  should  be 
submitted  to  the  conference  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  and  that  committees 
which  have  completed  part  of  their  work  should  present  a  report  on  that  part  without 
delay,  and  without  waiting  to  complete  the  remainder  of  the  program. 

It  appears  that  my  letter  of  yesterday  has  been  misunderstood  in  some  cases  to 
mean  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  send  in  the  reports  of  the  committees  until  the  end 
of  next  week.  I  should  like  to  point  out  that  it  was  requested  that  reports  should 
be  submitted  by  the  end  of  next  week  at  the  latest,  and  that  in  order  to  complete 
the  work  of  the  conference  within  the  time  at  its  disposal,  it  is  imperative  that  some 
of  the  reports  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  conference  not  later  than  Wednesday 
next.  I  should,  therefore,  be  glad  if  you  would  impress  upon  your  colleagues  the 
necessity  of  completing  their  work  with  the  greatest  possible  dispatch,  and  that  you 
would  inform  me  on  Monday  morning  of  the  approximate  date  on  which  you  expect 
to  send  in  your  report. 

If  the  reports  are  to  be  presented  to  the  conference  without  delay,  it  is  necessary 
to  make  provision  for  their  translation  beforehand,  and  this  can  not  be  done'  unless 
sufficient  notice  is  received  by  the  secretariat.  I  am, 

Your  obedient  servant, 


H.  B.  Butler,  Secretary  General. 


THIRTEENTH  SESSION— MONDAY,  NOVEMBER  17,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  3  o’clock  p.  m.,  Right  Hon.  G.  N. 
Barnes  (Great  Britain)  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  think  an  apology 
is  due  to  you  for  having  been  brought  together  and  then  there 
being  nobody  here  to  take  charge  of  the  meeting.  I  do  not  know 
how  that  has  arisen,  because  I  have  been  busily  engaged  during 
the  last  few  days,  twice  a  day,  in  the  morning  with  the  eastern 
committee  and  in  the  afternoon  with  the  special  committee  of 
15  that  you  set  up  to  consider  the  eight-hour  day.  Consequently 
I  have  been  out  of  touch  altogether  with  the  conference  proceedings 
here.  But  I  understand  that  last  week  you  adjourned  on  a  motion 
to  meet  again  to-day.  The  wind-up  of  the  last  meeting  recorded 
an  adjournment  to  Monday  at  2.30  p.  m. 

As  none  of  the  reports  are  ready  for  discussion,  the  committee  of 
selection  recommended  that  the  conference  should  sit  on  Wednesday 
afternoon.  The  matter  is  entirely  in  your  hands  as  to  the  period 
which  should  elapse  before  you  meet  again.  As  I  understand,  you 
decided  last  Thursday  to. meet  to-day  for  the  purpose  of  adjourning 
until  to-morrow,  and  then  the  committee  of  selection  appeared  to 
have  added  to  that  a  further  suggestion  that  you  meet  again  on 
Wednesday  afternoon.  I  expect  the  reason  for  that  is  that  the  com¬ 
mittee  find  that  there  are  none  of  the  reports  ready  for  to-morrow. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Has  the  secretary  general  any  informa¬ 
tion  to  impart  to  the  conference  before  we  adjourn? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  my  difficulty  is,  Mr.  Draper,  that  the 
secretary  general  is  not  here,  and  I  do  not  know  why  he  is  not 
here,  and  I  have  no  more  information  than  any  lady  or  gentleman 
upon  the  floor. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  It  may  not  be  apparent  to  you,  Mr. 
President,  and  the  delegates  constituting  the  conference,  that  the 
whole  work  of  the  conference  now  depends  upon  the  reports  of  the 
different  committees,  and  if  there  is  no  committee  ready  to  report, 
all  that  we  can  do  is  to  adjourn  to-day  until  such  time  as  some  one  of 
the  committees  is  ready  to  report.  Now,  the  question  that  occurs  to 
my  mind  is,  is  it  preferable  to  adjourn  until  to-morrow  at  2.30,  or 


until  Wednesday  at  2.30?  That  is  the  point.  However,  I  move, 
that  as  there  is  no  report  from  any  of  the  committees,  that  we  adjourn 
until  Wednesday  at  2.30.  Then  we  will  have  some  business  surely 
to  go  on  with. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  just  been  informed  that  there  are 
no  reports  likely  to  be  ready  until  Wednesday  morning,  and  that 
being  so,  I  think  Mr.  Draper’s  motion  will  be  perfectly  in  order, 
that  we  adjourn  until  Wednesday  afternoon.  But,  before  putting 
that,  I  have  a  request  to  make,  which  is  as  follows:  That  the  delegates 
from  the  West  Indies  and  from  Central  and  from  South  American 
countries  are  requested  to  remain  in  this  room  after  the  conference 
adjourns,  in  order  to  designate  three  representatives — one  Govern¬ 
ment,  one  workers’,  and  one  employers’ — to  act  on  the  committee 
appointed  to  consider  the  application  of  the  eight-hour  day  to  tropical 
countries. 

If  those  delegates  are  present  in  the  room,  will  they  please  remain 
after  the  adjournment,  in  order  that  they  may  select  their  three 
men  for  that  committee  and  then  send  the  names  in  to  Mr.  Butler. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President - 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Crawford,  do  you  want  to  raise  a  point? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  With  regard  to  the  motion 
standing  in  my  name,  I  have  received  a  revised  draft  from  Mr. 
Hudson,  the  lawyer,  and  I  want  to  accept  that  draft  and  to  put  it 
in.  I  would  like  to  read  it  to  the  conference  and  hand  it  in  for 
translation. 

The  conference  recognizes  that  a  question  has  arisen  concerning  the  competence  of 
the  Labor  Conference  to  admit  to  the  labor  organization  countries  other  than  Ger¬ 
many  and  Austria  which  may  not  be  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  since  this 
question  relates  to  the  interpretation  of  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  peace  within  the 
meaning  of  the  provisions  of  article  423  of  the  treaty  with  Germany,  it  hereby  directs 
the  officials  of  the  conference  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  council  of  the  League  of 
Nations  when  created  to  the  fact  that  this  question  has  arisen  and  to  the  records  of  the 
discussions  on  the  application  of  Finland  for  admission  to  membership  in  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference,  with  a  request  that  the  council  refer  this  question  for 
decision  to  the  permanent  court  of  international  justice  provided  for  In  article  14  of 
thecovenant  at  theearliest  possible  date. 


92 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  PRESIDENT.  I  think  there  can  be  no  objection  to  Mr. 
Crawford  handing  that  in  and  having  that  printed  in  substitution 
for  the  resolution  already  upon  the  paper.  The  motion  is  that  of 
Mr.  Draper,  that  the  conference  adjourn  until  Wednesday  after¬ 
noon  at  half  past  two. 

All  those  in  favor  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Are  there  any  opposed? 

There  are  none.  Adjourned  until  2.30  Wednesday. 

[Whereupon,  at  3.10  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Wednesday,  November  19,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute 
for  Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 
Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Hugg  (substitute  for  Mr. 
S.  R.  Parsons). 

Chile: . 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munlzaga  Varela. 

Mr.  F.  Nieto  Del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 


Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenterosy  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  C .  F.  Madsen. 

France: 

Mr.  P.  Collinet  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Louis  Gudrin). 


Finland: 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Niilio  Mannio. 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Great  Britian: 

Mr.  Howard  Williams  (substitute  for 
Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks.) 

Greece: 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  B.  Holtrop  (substitute  for 
Mr.  J.  Oudegeest.) 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 


Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra 
Mr.  Arturo  R.  Campus . 
Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  All  Khan 
Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan 
Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Trevost 
Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson 
Mr.  Victor  A.  Puia  on. 
Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Soksl. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Laccrda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 
Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 
South  Africa: 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 
Sweden: 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Llndqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Donxinici. 


FOURTEENTH  SESSION— WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER  19,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.45  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B. 
Wilson,  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  make  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  There  has  been  no  previous 
opportunity  of  bringing  formally  before  the  conference  the  names  of 
the  drafting  committee  as  approved  by  the  committee  of  selection 
under  article  12  of  the  standing  orders.  The  names  of  the  committee 
are:  M.  Mahaim,  M.  Lazard,  Mr.  Christie,  Mr.  Hudson,  and  Capt. 
Abraham. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  first  order  of  business  this  afternoon  is 
the  report  of  the  commission  on  the  employment  of  children.  The 
chairman  of  the  commission  is  recognized,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President, 
I  move  that  the  report  of  the  commission  on  children’s  employment 
in  reference  to  the  age  of  admission  of  children  into  industrial  em¬ 
ployment  be  adopted  by  this  conference. 

In  making  that  motion  submitting  the  proposals  of  the  committee 
to  the  conference  for  their  favorable  consideration  and  acceptance, 
I  desire  tc  say  that  the  commission  throughout  have  kept  in  view 
that  the  object  was,  first,  to  obtain  a  real  advance  on  existing  con¬ 
ditions  and,  secondly,  to  make  proposals  which  would  be  likely  to 
meet  with  general  acceptance. 

Acting  in  this  spirit  the  commission  has  been  able  to  reach  unan¬ 
imous  recommendations  on  the  main  points,  the  age  of  admission 
and  the  application  of  the  convention.  In  regard  to  the  question  of 
age  they  have  agreed  to  recommend  that  it  be  fixed  at  14  years  of 
age  for  all  industrial  employment.  Reservations  were  made  by 
certain  States  as  to  the  grant  of  a  period  of  transition  during  which 
some  exceptions  might  be  allowed,  but  these  were  transitional  only, 
and  the  general  principle  that  no  child  below  the  age  of  14  years 
should  be  employed  in  industrial  occupation  was  unanimously  agreed 
to.  The  conference  will  appreciate  that  if  this  recommendation  is 
approved  and  adopted  by  the  Governments,  it  will  be  a  very  sub¬ 
stantial  gain  which  the  conference  will  have  achieved.  A  reference 
to  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee,  in  which  the  existing  con¬ 
ditions  are  set  out,  will  show  that  in  most  countries,  including  many 
of  the  most  advanced,  'he  recommendation  will  carry  the  law  to  a 


point  considerably  beyond  that  already  reached.  There  were  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  commission  who  desired  to  see  a  higher  age - 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  President.  We 
can  not  understand  a  word  that  Sir  Malcolm  is  saying,  at  this  part  of 
the  hall. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  don’t  know  what  the  point  of  order  is, 
but  the  conference  will  be  in  order. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  May  I  suggest,  Mr.  President, 
that  Sir  Malcolm  be  asked  to  come  up  to  the  front  and  speak? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  suggested  that  Sir  Malcolm  come  to  the 
front,  as  those  at  the  far  end  of  the  hall  say  that  they  can  not  hear. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  I  have  my 
reports  here  in  case  they  are  needed.  If  the  conference  would  only 
maintain  a  little  order,  I  think  I  could  make  myself  heard. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Just  a  moment,  Sir  Malcolm.  Let  us  assume 
for  the  sake  of  convenient  conduct  of  the  conference  that  there  is  but 
one  conference  going  on  here  at  this  time,  and  that  all  the  sub¬ 
sidiary  conferences  are  for  the  time  being  adjourned. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  I  was  saying, 
Mr.  President,  that  there  were  members  of  the  commission  who 
desired  to  see  a  higher  age  than  14  fixed  in  convention,  but  it  was 
recognized  that  it  would  not  be  possible  in  the  present  circumstances 
to  go  beyond  the  age  of  14 — to  get  a  higher  age  than  14  generally 
adopted  by  the  Governments.  Those  members  have  agreed  to 
recommend  the  age  of  14  in  the  hope  that  at  some  later  conference  a 
further  advance  might  be  made. 

On  the  question  of  the  application  of  the  convention  there  is  also 
unanimity.  Some  members  desired  to  see  the  convention  extended 
to  all  employments  and  not  to  industrial  employments  only;  but  they 
recognized  also  that  matters  were  hardly  right  for  a  discussion  of 
such  an  extension  at  the  present  conference.  No  examination  had 
been  made  by  the  organizing  committee  of  any  employments  except 
industrial  employments,  and  no  representatives  of  agriculture,  com¬ 
merce,  or  other  employments  were  present  at  the  conference. 

I  now  come  to  two  matters  which  caused  the  commission  con¬ 
siderable  difficulty  and  on  which  it  was  not  able  to  reach  a  unani¬ 
mous  conclusion. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


93 


The  first  of  these  was  the  question  of  allowing  some  exception 
through  the  transitional  period  in  the  case  of  those  countries  where 
the  age  of  leaving  school  under  the  educational  law  has  not  been 
fixed  at  as  high  an  age  as  14.  It  was  represented  to  the  commission 
that  in  those  countries  the  immediate  adoption  of  the  proposal  of 
the  commission  would  leave  a  gap  between  the  time  at  which  the 
children  would  leave  school  and  the  time  at  which  they  would  be 
admitted  to  employment,  which  otherwise  could  not  be  filled,  and 
that  it  would  not  be  possible,  within  the  limit  of  time  allowed  by 
the  draft  convention,  to  make  the  educational  arrangements  which 
would  be  necessary  to  fill  that  gap  by  a  continuance  of  the  child’s 
education.  The  commission  recognized  that  this  was  a  serious 
difficulty,  but  they  came  to  the  conclusion,  by  a  majority  vote, 
that  the  date  fixed  in  the  draft  convention — -that  is,  the  1st  of  Jan¬ 
uary,  1922,  two  years  from  the  present  time — should  stand.  The 
conference  will  no  doubt  hear  from  the  representatives  of  those 
countries  to  whom  the  question  is  of  especial  importance  their  view 
of  this  aspect  of  the  question. 

The  other  matter  was  the  question  of  the  modifications,  if  any,  to 
be  allowed  in  the  case  of  those  countries  with  special  climatic  or 
industrial  conditions.  A  subcommittee  was  appointed  by  the  com¬ 
mission  to  consider  the  matter,  and  that  subcommittee  made  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  question,  and  we  have  the  advantage  of 
hearing  the  views  of  the  representatives — Government,  employers’, 
and  workers’  delegates — of  the  countries  affected. 

The  countries  fell  into  two  groups,  on  one  side  was  Japan,  on  the 
other  side  were  the  other  oriental  countries,  India,  China,  Persia, 
and  Siam.  The  Japanese  Government  delegate  submitted  proposals 
on  behalf  of  his  Government,  and  after  considerable  discussion  they 
were  accepted  with  a  certain  qualification  which  the  Japanese  dele¬ 
gate  was  able  to  accept.  I  desire  on  behalf  of  the  commission  to 
recognize  the  spirit  in  which  we  were  met  by  the  Japanese  delegates. 

As  regards  the  other  group,  the  commission  was  placed  at  a  con¬ 
siderable  difficulty  by  not  having  any  materials  before  it  on  which 
to  come  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  So  far  as  India  was  concerned — 
and  India,  of  course,  was  the  principal  country  in  this  group — the 
Indian  delegates  were  in  the  unfortunate  position  that  the  proposals 
of  the  organizing  committee  had  not  reached  India  at  the  time  when 
the  delegation  started  on  their  way.  It  was  represented  to  the 
commission  that  the  Indian  Government  had  the  matter  under  con¬ 
sideration  at  the  present  moment  in  connection  with  the  question 
of  the  introduction  of  an  educational  system  and  that  decision  had 
not  yet  been  arrived  at. 

Two  proposals  were  submitted  to  the  commission.  One  proposal 
was  that  the  commission  should  fix  a  limit  of  age  for  adoption  by 
this  group  of  countries,  if  they  saw  fit,  and  that  limit  of  age  was 
fixed,  for  certain  specified  industries,  at  12.  The  other  suggestion 
was  that,  without  coming  to  a  decision  one  way  or  the  other,  they 
should  recommend  that  the  matter  be  brought  up  again  at  next 
year’s  conference,  by  which  time  it  is  hoped  that  the  proposals  of 
the  Indian  Government  would  have  been  received  and  that  then  a 
definite  convention  supplementary  to  the  present  convention 
might  be  framed. 

The  commission  had  to  decide  between  these  two  proposals — to 
make  up  their  minds  under  which  of  the  two  the  best  results  would 
be  secured.  On  the  one  hand,  the  adoption  by  the  commission 
of  a  definite  limit  of  age  which  might  not  be  approved  by  the  Indian 
Government  would  leave  the  question  exactly  where  it  is  at  present, 
and  no  advance  would  have  been  achieved.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  proposal  to  defer  the  matter  for  one  year  in  order  that  the  pro¬ 
posals  of  the  Indian  Government  might  be  received  would,  at  any 
rate,  secure  a  further  consideration  of  the  matter,  and  the  possi¬ 
bility — the  probability,  perhaps — that  a  supplemental  convention 
could  be  secured.  The  commission  would,  I  think,  have  pre¬ 
ferred  the  former  course,  if  they  had  felt  that  a  definite  result  would 
have  been  obtained  by  it.  But  after  hearing  the  representatives 
of  India,  the  Government  delegates,  and  the  employers’  delegates, 
they  felt  that  the  weight — the  balance  of  advantage — lay  with  the 
second  proposal,  and  it  was  finally  carried  by  a  considerable  majority; 


that  is,  the  proposal  which  is  embodied  in  the  commission  report. 
I  regret  that  on  these  two  points,  the  question  of  the  period  of  tran¬ 
sition  and  the  question  of  the  application  of  the  convention  to  this 
group  of  tropical  countries,  the  commission  was  not  able  to  arrive 
at  a  unanimous  decision,  but  we  hope  that  it  will  not  prevent  the 
adoption  of  the  general  proposals  which  they  have  put  forward. 

It  is  not  necessary,  I  think,  to  say  much  about  the  remaining  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  draft  convention.  A  new  text  was  adopted  by  the 
committee  in  place  of  article  2,  with  the  consent  of  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  French  Government,  at  whose  instance  the  provision 
was  originally  inserted,  and  if  the  conference  desire  further  expla¬ 
nation  of  the  provision,  no  doubt  the  delegates  from  France  will  be 
happy  to  give  it. 

If  these  proposals  which  are  submitted  by  the  commission  are 
adopted  they  will,  under  the  terms  of  the  standing  orders,  be  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  drafting  committee  and  will  be  brought  up  in  the  shape 
of  a  definite  convention  for  decision  by  the  conference  at  a  later 
stage. 

In  moving  that  this  course  be  adopted,  that  the  proposals  be  ap¬ 
proved  and  referred  to  the  drafting  committee,  I  desire  again  to 
emphasize  the  spirit  of  conciliation  which  animated  the  commission 
throughout  its  proceedings.  I  can  testify  that  there  was  a  single- 
minded  desire  to  achieve  definite  results,  and  we  venture  to  ask  for 
the  favorable  consideration  of  the  conference,  and  we  shall  be  proud 
if  the  conference,  by  adopting  our  proposals,  have  allowed  us  to  lay 
the  first  stone  in  the  edifice  of  labor  legislation  which  the  interna¬ 
tional  labor  conferences  are  going  to  erect.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Miss  Margaret  Bondfield,  of  the  British 
delegation. 

Miss  MARGARET  BONDFIELD  (Great  Britain).  On  behalf 
of  the  British  workers’  delegation,  I  beg  to  move  the  amendment 
printed  on  the  order  of  the  day  circulated  this  morning,  to  add  to 
the  convention  a  new  clause,  No.  5: 

In  the  application  of  the  convention  to  India,  the  following  modifications  may  take 
effect: 

Children  under  12  should  not  he  employed:  (o)  In  factories  working  with  power, 
employing  more  than  10  persons;  (6)  in  mines  and  quarries;  (c)  on  railroads;  (d)  on 
docks. 

The  reason  why  we  move  this  amendment  is  because  we  feel  that 
there  has  not  been  presented  to  us  any  reasons  which  seem  sufficient 
to  omit  India  entirely  from  the  provisions  of  this  convention.  We 
understand  that  the  main  argument  which  has  been  very  forcibly 
and  ably  put  by  the  Indian  Government  representatives  is  that  the 
Indian  Government  had  no  time  to  consider  this  matter.  That  may 
be  an  explanation  entirely  justified  by  the  delegates  who  are  here, 
but  personally  I  think  it  is  no  excuse  for  the  Indian  Government. 
This  question  of  child  labor  has  been  discussed  by  the  whole  world, 
and  we  do  not  think  the  Indian  Government  should  be  so  detached 
from  world  discussions  as  not  to  be  prepared  with  recommendations 
on  this  subject  in  1919. 

With  regard  to  one  of  the  other  main  objections,  namely,  the 
nature  of  the  Indian  industries,  we  have  carefully  drafted  this  amend¬ 
ment  to  exclude  all  those  industries  that  could  be  considered  purely 
native  industries  or  that  are  small  industries.  It  is  specially  drafted 
to  refer  only  to  those  industries  which  are  being  modeled  on  western 
ideas,  which  are  to  some  extent  under  control  of  factory  legislation, 
and  which  are — I  think  I  probably  will  be  right  in  saying — mainly 
supervised  by  western  people,  by  Englishmen,  by  Scotchmen,  by 
Irishmen,  by  Welshmen,  and  so  on  and  so  forth.  Our  main  point  is 
that  in  textiles,  in  engineering,  in  all  those  great  industries  where  a 
factory  act  has  already  been  applied,  it  should  be  quite  possible  to 
have  the  western  safeguards;  and  it  is  that  point  that  we  particularly 
wish  to  impress  upon  the  Indian  Government. 

I  would  repeat,  that  where  western  methods  of  industry  are  being 
introduced  into  an  eastern  country  they  should  be  simultaneously 
accompanied  by  western  safeguards. 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  mines,  railways,  and  docks,  the 
nature  of  the  employment,  it  seems  to  us,  'null  be  a  sufficient  reason 
for  safeguarding  the  employment  of  children  on  those  properties. 


94 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Another  strong  reason  used  is  that  there  would  be  so  much  objection 
on  the  part  of  Indian  parents  if  anything  is  done  to  prevent  the  em¬ 
ployment  of  children.  We  have  all  had  to  fight  that  in  our  respec¬ 
tive  countries.  I  remember  perfectly  well  being  mobbed  in  my 
own  country  when  I  advocated  the  abolition  of  half  time  in  the 
textile  mills.  The  parents,  they  said,  would  never  consent  to  being 
deprived  of  the  right  to  work  their  children  whenever  they  chose. 
We  don’t  think  that  is  a  purely  eastern  argument;  we  have  met  it  in 
the  West.  We  have  conquered  it  in  the  West  by  educational 
methods  and  organization  and  we  do  not  admit  that  as  a  sound  and 
valid  reason.  I  recognize  there  is  a  very  serious  objection,  and  that 
is  the  fact  that  in  India  the  educational  machinery  is  so  entirely 
defective.  That,  of  course,  is  another  grave  responsibility  of  the 
Indian  Government,  but  I  venture  to  suggest  that  one  of  the  quickest 
ways  of  securing  the  speeding  up  of  educational  provision  in  India 
is  by  the  prohibition  of  child  labor.  And  it  is  not  sufficient  to  let 
the  children  be  taken  underground,  out  of  sight,  or  into  the  factories, 
out  of  sight,  in  order  to  dispose  of  that  problem. 

We  want  very  earnestly  to  urge  that  one  of  the  quickest  ways  of 
expediting  the  provision  of  educational  facilities  is  by  the  prohibi¬ 
tion  of  child  labor  below  the  age  of  12.  I  don’t  want  to  lengthen 
out  the  argument.  We  submit  this  amendment  in  all  seriousness. 
We  recognize  that,  just  as  the  main  convention  would  have  to  De 
considered  by  the  Indian  Government  and  would  probably  be 
turned  down,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  Indian  Government  will 
consider  this  if  you  embody  it  in  the  convention  and  will  turn  it 
down.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent  them  from  turning  it  down. 
There  is  nothing  to  prevent  them,  if  this  is  carried  to-day,  from 
bringing  forward  their  own  proposals  at  the  next  convention  alterna¬ 
tive  to  this  proposal.  But  what  I  feel  might  be  accomplished  by 
carrying  this  proposal  in  the  open  conference  is  that  it  might  give 
the  Indian  Government  some  idea  of  the  world  opinion  on  this 
matter,  which  would  help  them  to  make  up  their  minds  to  really 
do  something  in  time  for  the  next  conference.  I  beg  to  move  the 
amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  amendment  to  the 
draft  proposed  by  the  commission  and  moved  by  Miss  Bondfield. 

Is  there  further  discussion? 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee  is  recognized. 

Mr.  CHATTERJEE  (India).  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  assure  the 
conference  at  the  outset  that  it  is  a  far  from  pleasant  duty  to  oppose 
this  amendment.  I  appreciate  to  the  full  the  generous  and  the 
humanitarian  sentiments  that  have  prompted  this  amendment 
moved  by  Miss  Bondfield.  I  can  assure  her,  on  behalf  of  myself 
as  well  as  of  my  colleague,  Mr.  Kershaw,  the  other  Government 
delegate  from  India,  that  we  have  both  the  same  object  at  heart  as 
Miss  Bondfield  has,  only  we  differ  about  the  method  that  should  be 
adopted. 

No  one  is  more  anxious  than  I  am  personally  to  see  a  steady  better¬ 
ment  in  industrial  and  social  conditions  among  my  countrymen,  for 
I  feel  very  deeply  that  on  such  gradual  and  progressive  development 
the  entire  future  of  India  depends.  I  hope  fervently  that  the  recom¬ 
mendation  and  deliberations  of  this  conference  will  give  a  powerful 
impetus  to  social  improvement  in  India,  but  because  I  feel  that  we 
should  do  something  practical,  and  that  the  recommendation  should 
lead  to  immediate  practical  effects  in  India,  I  feel  compelled  to 
oppose  this  amendment. 

I  shall  not  weary  you  with  any  discussion  on  the  merits  of  the  case. 
Miss  Bondfield  has  urged  that  the  usual  argument  that  the  people  of 
India  themselves  do  not  want  any  improvement  is  no  especially 
oriental  argument;  that  she  has  met  with  the  same  conditions  in 
Europe.  But  I  do  not  know  if  Miss  Bondfield  realizes  that  in  India 
even  the  parents  have  at  present,  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  no 
education  at  all;  and  it  takes  a  much  longer  time  to  accomplish  the 
same  object  of  educating  public  opinion  in  India  in  these  matters 
than  it  took  even  Miss  Bondfield,  with  her  zealous  and  numerous  co¬ 
workers,  in  England.  I  can  tell  you  as  an  Indian  that  amongst  the 
educated  classes  in  India  there  is  an  earnest  desire  for  the  intro¬ 


duction  of  compulsory  education  in  India.  I  have  myself,  as  a 
private  individual  and  as  a  Government  officer,  had  much  to  do 
in  establishing  schools  and  persuading  the  people  to  send  their 
children  to  school,  and  I  can  tell  you  that  I  have  had  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  this  respect  amongst  what  are  known  as  the  lower  castes 
in  our  country.  We  are  all  doing  our  best,  but  we  can  not  accom¬ 
plish  wonders  without  some  lapse  of  time,  and  we  only  ask  for  a 
little  time. 

It  is  not  quite  correct  to  say  that  we  have  stood  absolutely  still  in 
the  matter  of  introducing  compulsory  education  in  India.  During 
the  last  year  or  two  very  definite  progressive  steps  have  been  taken 
in  the  matter.  The  different  provincial  legislatures  in  India  have 
passed  measures  enabling  local  authorities  to  adopt  compulsory 
education  in  their  areas.  And  to  my  knowledge  various  towns  are 
now  arranging  for  the  introduction  of  schemes.  But  time  is  required 
by  them,  not  only  for  making  arrangements  with  regard  to  finances, 
but  also  in  order  to  secure  teachers,  in  order  to  secure  buildings, 
and  in  order  to  get  equipment.  Until  there  are  adequate  educa¬ 
tional  facilities  available  for  children  in  India,  and  until  such 
children  can  be  compelled  to  avail  themselves  of  the  facilities,  the 
raising  of  the  age  of  employment  will  only  throw  such  children  on 
the  street.  In  a  country  where  children  develop  much  earlier  than 
in  the  North  or  in  the  West,  and  where  the  customs  of  the  country 
do  not  enable  the  mothers  to  look  after  their  children  with  the  same 
freedom  and  capacity  as  they  could  do  in  the  West,  the  result  would 
be  more  disastrous  to  the  children  than  otherwise. 

I  wish  again  to  refer  to  what  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  has  men¬ 
tioned  with  regard  to  the  special  disadvantages  which  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  India  and  the  delegates  from  India  have  experienced  during 
the  present  session  of  the  conference.  The  questionnaire  sent  out 
by  the  organizing  committee  did  not  reach  India  until  very  late. 
The  draft  conventions  and  recommendations  which  have  been  put 
forward  by  the  organizing  committee  had  not  reached  India  even 
when  the  delegation  left  the  country. 

The  conference  will  realize  how  difficult  it  has  been  for  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  India  to  give  any  consideration  to  such  recommendations 
or  reports  or  to  give  any  instructions  to  the  delegates;  but,  as  I  have 
already  said,  the  question  has  received  the  earnest  attention  of  both 
the  Government  and  the  public  in  India,  and  all  that  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  India  want  is  that  they  should  have  time  to  gauge  and  to 
influence  public  opinion. 

I  must  state  that  the  number  of  children  employed  in  factories  in 
India  is  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  total  industrial  population  of 
India,  and  these  children  are  all  employed  on  light  and  subsidiary 
occupations  and  are  all  half-timers.  The  Government  of  India  is 
not,  therefore,  likely  to  be  influenced  in  the  discussion  of  the  matter 
by  any  consideration  that  any  raising  of  the  age  limit  will  seriously 
affect  the  economic  conditions  or  the  industrial  development  of  the 
country. 

Miss  Bondfield  has  suggested  that  where  western  methods  of  in¬ 
dustry  are  introduced  in  India,  western  factory  legislation  should 
also  be  adopted.  I  can  assure  Miss  Bondfield  and  also  the  confer¬ 
ence,  that  the  whole  history  of  factory  legislation  in  India  shows 
that  that  has  been  the  sole  object  of  the  Government  as  well  as  of 
the  legislators  in  India. 

I  wish  the  members  of  the  conference  to  realize  that  in  discussing 
this  amendment  they  are  not  discussing  what  the  exact  age  for  em¬ 
ployment  in  India  should  be,  but  rather  what  the  procedure  should 
be  in  getting  a  definite  age  fixed  for  India.  The  commission  in 
their  report  have  recommended  that  the  Government  of  India 
should  be  asked  to  put  forward  their  own  proposals  at  the  conference 
next  year.  I  submit  that  this  delay  of  only  one  year  will  not  preju¬ 
dice  the  settlement  of  the  question.  In  fact,  it  will  probably  insure 
a  speedier  and  more  satisfactory  settlement  than  if  the  amendment 
is  accepted,  and  this  conference  should  make  cut-and-dried  pro¬ 
posals  to  India  without  a  full  examination  of  all  the  special  needs 
and  circumstances  of  India.  I  wish  to  say  that  the  Government  of 
India  is  anxious  to  consider  any  proposal  in  the  most  sympathetic 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


95 


spirit,  and  I  venture  to  hope  that  this  conference  will  deem  it  only 
fair  that  the  Government  of  India  should  be  given  an  opportunity 
to  put  forward  their  considered  proposals. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Warington  Smyth,  of  South  Africa. 

Mr.  SMYTH  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Prerdent,  ’I  should  like,  on 
behalf  of  the  members  of  the  commission  which  studied  this 
question,  to  explain  in  a  few  words  why  we  adopted  the  course 
that  we  did  in  regard  to  our  recommendations  for  India.  Now, 
Mr.  President,  in  discussing  the  question  of  India  it  is,  I  think, 
essential  for  us  to  remember  the  conditions  which  exist  in 
that  great  country.  You  have  there  an  enormous  population  of 
300,000,000  of  people.  You  must  imagine  to  yourself  an  enormous 
country  extending  over  tropical  countries,  arid  deserts,  mountains 
and  mountain  snows;  and  in  all  those  climates  and  over  all  that 
country  are  the  great  population  of  India,  varying  as  much  in  their 
characteristics,  in  their  national  development,  in  their  civilization, 
and  in  their  traditions  as  the  climate  of  the  countries  in  which  they 
live.  In  fact,  the  astonishing  thing  to  anybody  traveling  in  India 
is  the  large  number  of  languages,  the  large  number  of  separate  castes 
and  traditions.  Now,  Mr.  President,  those  very  facts — that  this 
enormous  country  is  split  up  into  so  many  languages,  so  many  castes, 
and  so  many  traditions  and  religions— those  very  facts  make  it  im¬ 
possible  to  adopt  at  short  notice  any  system  of  compulsory  educa¬ 
tion  for  children.  You  can  see  for  yourselves  that  the  problem  is  an 
immense  one.  Not  only  must  you  consider  the  different  religions, 
but  the  caste  question  lies  almost  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole  of  the 
Indian  difficulties.  That  one  caste  will  not  mix  with  another; 
that  one  set  of  children  is  born  into  a  certain  caste,  who  can  have 
nothing  to  do  with,  and  can  never  rise  into,  another  caste;  those 
things  in  your  educational  system  have  got  to  be  considered  and 
thought  out.  Each  child  must  be  taught  by  a  coreligionist  of  its 
own  caste  in  the  language  which  it  knows.  The  problem,  therefore, 
before  the  Indian  Government  as  regards  education,  which  is,  as 
every  speaker  has  admitted,  closely  mixed  up  with  this  question  of 
employment — the  problem  before  them  is,  I  say,  a  very  great  one. 

Now,  sir,  the  very  idea  to-day  of  education  in  India  is  hardly 
understood.  You  may  travel  for  days — nay,  for  weeks — in  India 
and  never  see  a  white  man,  and  may  never  see  a  railway.  To  those 
people  modern  ideas  have  not  permeated  at  all,  and  those  who 
to-day  hold  the  advanced  views  of  educated  men  like  my  friend 
the  last  speaker  can  be  counted  in  thousands  among  the  millions 
of  that  great  country.  Consequently,  Mr.  President,  education, 
m  dern  ideas,  modern  developments,  are  only  surface  deep  in  India, 
and  the  Indian  Government,  however  advanced  it  may  be,  has 
the  immense  problem  before  it  of  trying  to  create  public  opinion 
among  those  masses  before  it  can  advance.  If  you  were  to  go  to 
them  to-day  with  a  scheme  of  education  of  the  very  best  kind, 
you  could  not  get  them  to  accept  it  because  their  intellectual  out¬ 
look  is  entirely  incapable  of  understanding  what  you  are  aiming 
at,  and  it  would  only  be  thought  that  you  were  making  some  attack 
on  their  religion,  their  caste,  or  their  tradition. 

Take,  for  instance,  this  question  of  mines,  Mr.  President.  The 
coal  mines  of  Bengal  are,  a  large  number  of  them,  shallow.  They 
are  worked  by  families  of  workers  who  come  from  the  country 
around — fathers,  mothers,  and  children.  They  all  come  in  a  family 
party.  You  would  think  they  would  work  underground  by  day. 
Not  a  bit  of  it.  They  all  go  down  at  night,  because  then  it  is  cooler 
to  carry  on  their  work;  and  they  go  down — mother  and  father, 
women  and  children,  daughters  and  babies  in  arms.  Now,  you 
can  not  apply  regulations  about  underground  work  offhand  to  a 
condition  of  mining  such  as  that. 

Under  those  circumstances,  Mr.  President,  the  majority  of  the  com¬ 
mission  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  best  thing  to  do  was  to  give  the 
Indian  Government  an  opportunity  of  putting  forward  their  own  ideas 
and  their  own  scheme  with  regard  to  this  question  of  lowering  the  age 
at  which  children  may  be  employed.  To  lay  down  offhand  a  rule 
about  12  years  of  age  would  not  be  worth  the  paper  it  was  written  on. 

I  suggest  that  the  practical,  the  sensible,  way  to  deal  with  the 
matter  is  to  ask  the  Indian  Government  to  let  a  future  conference  of 


this  body  have  its  views  and  have  its  plans  and  ideas.  Therefore, 
sir,  we  appended  our  names  to  the  report  which  has  been  made  to 
you,  and,  therefore,  I  suggest  to  this  conference  that  we  can  not 
unravel  this  great  problem.  We  can  not  even  indicate  to  the  Indian 
Government  how  to  do  it,  but  they,  of  their  own  accord,  are  engaged 
in  investigation  with  regard  to  these  questions.  They  know  them¬ 
selves  how  far  they  can  go  in  the  matter  of  obtaining,  for  instance, 
even  fairly  accurate  statistics  with  regard  to  their  own  factories,  the 
extent  of  which  are  still  unknown  to-day. 

In  all  those  things  the  Indian  Government  is  far  better  able  to  tell 
what  they  can  do  and  what  they  can  not  do,  what  they  can  try  to  do 
immediately  and  what  they  can  try  to  do  by  degrees. 

Under  those  circumstances,  Mr.  President,  I  suggest  to  this  con¬ 
ference  that  the  recommendation  of  the  commission  might  be 
accepted  in  regard  to  India,  believing  as  I  do,  in  their  desire  to  see 
that  the  children  are  not  worked  in  factories  and  that  the  age  is 
raised  gradually  in  all  countries,  believing  that  that  will  be  the 
best  course  to  obtain  the  cooperation  of  the  Indian  Government  and 
to  obtain  some  real  degree  of  advance  and  success. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Joshi,  of  the  Indian  delegation. 

Mr.  JOSHI  (India).  On  behalf  of  the  workers  in  India  I  rise  to 
support  the  amendment  put  before  this  conference  by  Miss  Bond- 
field.  I  can  assure  this  conference  that  it  is  not  a  very  pleasant  task 
that  I  have  undertaken,  namely,  that  of  criticizing  the  attitude  of 
the  Government  delegates  in  a  conference  of  such  an  international 
character  like  this.  But  I  have  to  do  my  duty  toward  those  people 
for  whom  I  stand  in  this  conference.  Sir,  Mr.  Warington  Smyth, 
from  Africa,  has  placed  before  you  a  picture  of  India  from  which 
you  are  likely  to  imagine  that  India  is  an  uncivilized  or,  at  the  most, 
a  half-civilized  country.  But  let  me  request  this  conference  to 
remember  that  India  has  been  governed  by  the  British  Parliament 
for  over  100  years,  and  in  some  Provinces  for  over  150  years.  The 
British  Parliament,  than  which  there  is  no  more  democratic  govern¬ 
ing  institution  in  the  world,  is  responsible  for  the  government  of 
India.  And  can  you  believe,  if  you  are  told  that  under  that  Gov¬ 
ernment  for  over  100  years  India  could  not  have  made  any  greater 
progress  than  that  which  has  been  pictured  to  you  by  Mr.  Waring¬ 
ton  Smyth? 

I  am  quite  sure  the  representatives  of  my  Government,  as  well  as 
the  representatives  of  the  British  Government  here,  will  not  accept 
the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Warington  Smyth  in  defense  of  the 
Government  of  India.  Then,  I  wish  also  to  bring  to  your  notice 
another  fact,  namely,  that  factory  legislation  is  not  quite  unknown 
in  India.  She  does  not  stand  on  the  same  footing  as  China,  Siam, 
or  Persia  in  that  respect.  We  have  had  for  many  years  some  fac¬ 
tory  legislation  which  is  being  improved  from  time  to  time.  There¬ 
fore,  when  you  consider  the  case  of  India,  lay  aside  from  your  mind 
the  impression  that  India  is  the  country  depicted  to  you  by  Mr. 
Warington  Smyth  and  also  remember  that  factory  legislation  is  not 
new  to  that  country. 

At  the  outset  I  wish  to  describe  to  you  what  protection  is  afforded 
to  children  by  that  factory  legislation.  According  to  our  factory 
act,  children  under  9  are  not  allowed  to  be  employed,  but  children 
between  9  and  14  can  be  employed  for  six  hours  and,  in  some  cases, 
for  seven.  My  friend,  Mr.  Chatterjee,  calls  it  light  work.  Let  me 
remind  this  conference  that  it  is  going  to  pass  a  convention  of  eight 
hours  a  day  for  adults,  and  that  you  are  asked  to  accept  the  state¬ 
ment  that  in  India  climatic  conditions  are  so  different  that  chil¬ 
dren  of  9  can  work  for  six  hours,  and  even  seven  hours,  and  that 
should  be  considered  light  work. 

Now,  I  beg  of  you  to  consider  what  the  amendment  is.  The 
amendment  is  that  the  age  should  be  raised  from  9  to  12.  We  do 
not  ask,  for  the  present,  to  apply  to  India  the  general  convention 
prohibiting  employment  of  children  under  14.  We  suggest  a  very 
moderate  application  of  it.  We  ask  you  to  allow  the  workers  of 
India  to  reach  the  final  goal  stage  by  stage,  and  we  propose  to  you 
the  first  stage  as  proposed  in  the  amendment. 

Further,  we  do  not  ask  you,  as  you  ask  in  the  general  convention, 
to  apply  this  age  limit  to  almost  all  industries.  We  ask  you  to  fix 


96 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


this  age  limit  only  for  those  industries  which  are  operated  with 
some  mechanical  power  and  in  which  not  less  than  10  persons  are 
employed.  We  also  ask  you  to  apply  this  age  limit  to  certain  well- 
organized  occupations,  such  as  railways,  mines,  and  docks,  where 
supervision  by  Government  inspectors  is  very  easy. 

Now  let  us  see  what  are  the  arguments  offered  before  this  con¬ 
ference  in  opposition  to  the  amendment  of  Miss  Bondfield. 

The  first  and  perhaps  the  most  important  argument  is  that  in 
Tndia  there  is  no  system  of  compulsory  education  and  the  children 
will  go  on  the  streets  if  you  do  not  allow  them  to  be  employed.  I 
admit  there  is  great  force  to  this  argument,  but  let  me  tell  you  again 
that  the  picture  drawn  for  you  by  Mr.  Warington  Smyth  concerning 
the  matter  is  not  true,  in  the  least.  Let  me  ask  you  if  there  was 
education  anywhere  in  the  world  before  it  was  in  India?  The  idea 
of  education  is  not  new  to  India.  Indians  were  educated,  Indians 
wrote  books  on  most  difficult  subjects  some  thousand  years,  at  least 
two  or  three  thousand  years,  before  perhaps  any  other  people  began 
to  write  books  and  think  on  these  subjects. 

Therefore,  the  idea  of  education  is  not  certainly  so  new  to  Indians 
as  is  depicted  to  you  by  my  friend,  Mr.  Warington  Smyth.  He 
said  it  will  take  time  to  educate  public  opinion  in  India;  without 
doing  that  the  Government  can  not  introduce  a  general  system  of 
education.  Let  me  again  tell  you  that  the  Government  of  India  is 
not  very  much  influenced  by  public  opinion  in  the  country.  It  is 
to  this  present  day  an  autocratic  or  a  bureaucratic  government.  If 
the  Government  means  to-morrow  to  introduce  certain  legislation  in 
the  country,  they  can  do  it  even  if  the  whole  public  opinion  of  the 
country  is  opposed  to  it.  Therefore  the  argument  that  the  Govern¬ 
ment  waits  to  educate  public  opinion  holds  no  water  at  all.  But 
Indian  public  opinion  as  expressed  by  the  educated  Indians  is 
certainly  not  against  education.  A  bill  for  compulsory  education 
in  India  was  introduced  in  the  legislative  council  of  the  country 
some  10  years  ago  by  Mr.  Gokhale,  and  th  •  opposition  to  it  did  not 
come  from  the  educated  people  of  the  country,  but  the  opposition 
came  from  the  Government  itself.  I  therefore  think  that  the  argu¬ 
ment  that  public  opinion  must  be  educated  before  education  is 
made  compulsory  need  not  carry  any  weight  with  you  at  all. 

Mr.  Chatterjee  also  said  that  it  is  difficult  to  persuade  people  to 
accept  education.  Let  me  tell  this  conference  that  in  the  same  India 
of  which  this  conference  has  spoken  there  are  some  parts  like  Baroda 
where  compulsory  education  has  been  in  force  for  several  years,  and 
people  in  those  Provinces  have  not  rebelled  against  their  Govern¬ 
ment.  Therefore,  we  need  not  consider  very  seriously  the  objection 
that  people  in  India  will  object  to  the  introduction  of  compulsory 
education. 

Sir,  there  is  no  doubt  that  you  can  not  educate  a  vast  country  like 
India  within  one  year.  I  admit  that.  And  therefore  I  ask  you, 
What  is  the  use  of  waiting  for  one  year  when  we  know  full  well  that 
you  can  not  introduce  a  general  system  of  compulsory  education  in 
a  vast  country  like  India  in  such  a  short  time?  It  will  be  of  no  use. 
If  the  Government  ol  India  could  not  educate  the  people  during  the 
past  century  or  more.  I  am  quite  sure  they  will  not  be  able  to  intro¬ 
duce  a  general  system  of  education  within  one  year.  Therefore, 
1  think  we  shall  not  gain  anything  by  giving  them  one  year’s  time. 
If  we  think  that  children  of  9  and  10  and  11  should  not  go  to  factories 
and  work  there  for  seven  hours  and  six  hours,  let  us  raise  the  age 
limit  and  leave  it  to  the  Government  to  find  educational  facilities 
for  them. 

I  can  give  you  an  additional  reason.  If  we  are  anxious  that 
Indian  children  should  be  educated,  then  I  may  tell  you  that  if  you 
once  raise  the  age  limit  for  employment  in  factories  the  opposition 
from  at  least  one  section  of  the  opponents  of  education,  namely, 
the  capitalists,  will  melt  away  at  once 

1  now  leave  the  argument  about  education.  The  second  argu¬ 
ment  against  the  amendment  is  that  India  has  different  climatic 
conditions.  I  admit  we  have  more  of  the  sun  than  western 
countries.  But  are  you  going  to  believe  that  in  India  children  of 
9  years  of  age  are  as  well  developed  as  children  of  14  years  of  age 


in  western  countries?  Do  you  think  that  climate  can  make  that 
great  difference,  that  children  of  9  can  be  as  well  developed  as 
children  of  14  in  Europe?  I  need  not  say  anything  about  this 
argument.  Only  I  put  it  to  you  whether  that  is  possible.  • 

The  Government’s  other  argument  is  that  they  had  no  notice. 
All  of  you  must  have  received  a  copy  of  the  supplementary  report 
in  which  the  views  of  the  Government  of  India  are  given.  That 
one  fact  will  prove  to  you  that  the  question  was  before  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  India.  They  considered  the  question.  They  sent  their 
views  to  this  conference,  but  when  the  question  of  raising  the  age 
is  to  be  discussed  in  the  conference  we  are  expected  to  forget  that 
fact.  We  must  close  our  eyes  to  that  report.  I  admit  there  was 
not  a  very  long  notice,  but  there  was  notice  to  the  Government 
that  the  question  of  the  employment  of  children  was  to  be  dis¬ 
cussed  by  this  conference.  It  was  known  to  the  Government  long 
ago,  and  if  they  were  really  serious  about  this  question  I  am  quite 
sure  they  would  have  come  to  certain  conclusions.  Decisions, 
even  in  India,  even  in  a  vast  country  like  India,  are  taken  by 
the  Government  on  very  vital  matters  at  shorter  notice  than  was 
given  by  this  conference. 

Then  there  is  the  argument  that  the  draft  convention  was  not 
before  theta,  but  let  this  conference  remember  that  we  are  not  con¬ 
sidering  the  general  draft  convention.  The  Indian  Government 
knew  that  the  draft  convention  which  was  to  be  sent  to  them,  or 
which  was  sent  afterwards,  was  not  to  be  applied  to  India.  The 
Government  of  India  knew  perfectly  well  that  India's  case  w  uld 
be  considered  specially. 

Perhaps  some  of  you  may  know  that  the  clause  for  the  special 
countries  was  put  in  the  treaty  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Indian 
representatives  at  the  Peace  Conference,  and  therefore  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  India  knew  that  the  general  convention  will  not  be 
applied  to  India.  They  certainly  need  not  have  waited  for  the 
general  convention  at  all.  Their  duty  was  to  consider  what  was 
best  for  India  and  to  place  those  proposals  before  this  conference. 
I  therefore  hope  that  all  of  you  will  agree  with  me  when  I  say 
that  the  argument  that  there  was  no  notice  really  carries  no  weight 
at  all.  There  was  notice  to  the  Government  of  India.  They 
had  considered  the  question.  They  had  sent  their  views  to  you. 
They  clearly  said  that  they  were  not  prepared  to  do  anything 
in  the  matter,  and  then  you  are  asked  again  to  wait.  I  do 
not  know  for  what  reason.  My  only  guess,  if  you  will  allow 
me  to  say  so,  is  that  they  wanted  to  get  a  postponement 
for  one  year,  and,  if  possible,  to  get  further  postponements.  Move- 
over,  the  Government  delegates  aye  likely  to  accept  certain  definite 
proposals  as  regards  the  hours  of  work.  The  Government  had  time 
to  consider  such  an  intricate  question  as  the  hours  of  work,  but 
they  had  no  notice  to  consider  the  simple  question  of  raising 
the  age  of  children’s  employment. 

We  are  assured — and  I  must  accept  the  assurance — that  no 
economic  considerations  weigh  with  the  Government,  and  perhaps 
even  with  the  employers,  in  considering  the  age  limit  of  children 
in  India.  Their  motive  in  opposing  the  raising  of  the  age  limit 
is  to  safeguard  the  interests  of  children.  If  that  is  so,  may  I  ask 
them  why  they  object  to  the  employment  of  children  between 
6  and  9?  Do  they  not  go  in  the  streets  for  want  of  education? 

I  therefore  request  this  conference  not  to  wait  for  one  year  more 
We  shall  not  gain  anything  by  waiting,  because  the  education  ques¬ 
tion  will  not  be  solved  in  one  year.  If  you  can  save  the  children 
of  9,  10,  and  11  in  India  from  work  for  one  year,  it  would  be  a  great 
benefit  to  them;  and  I  therefore  firmly  believe  that  you  will  give 
your  serious  consideration  to  this  question  and  will  not  postpone  it 
for  a  year,  because  there  will  be  no  advantage  in  postponing  it. 

I  shall  only  say  one  word  more.  We  are  told  that  if  this  conference 
makes  a  definite  suggestion  for  raising  the  age  limit  for  children  to  a 
definite  period,  the  Government  of  India  may  not  accept  the  pro¬ 
posal;  but  I  submit  to  this  conference  that  Great  Britain  has  played 
a  very  important  part  in  bringing  this  International  Labor  Organ¬ 
ization  into  existence,  and  I  am  quitesure  the  Government  of  India, 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


97 


which  is  responsible  to  Great  Britain,  will  not  treat  a  convention 
passed  by  this  conference  very  lightly.  As  our  proposal  is  very 
reasonable  and  modest,  we  can  also  be  sure  that  the  Government  of 
India  will  be  inclined  to  accept  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Baldesi,  of  the  Italian  delegation. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian):  I  second  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning,  seconded  also  by  the  Indian  workmen’s 
representative,  for  the  reasons  stated  in  that  motion,  which  reasons 
have  not  been  contradicted  by  the  opponents  of  the  motion. 

As  regards  the  age  of  admission  of  children  into  industrial  pur¬ 
suits,  I  am  obliged  to  propose  to  change  the  age  of  admission  from 
14  to  15,  as  was  adopted  by  the  Bern  convention  at  the  last  inter¬ 
national  workmen’s  convention.  I  refrain  from  explaining  my 
reasons,  for  the  very  fact  that  these  reasons  were  given  in  the  delib¬ 
erations  of  the  said  convention,  and  also  that  they  were  touched 
upon  in  the  majority  report  of  the  report  of  the  commission  on 
employment  of  children,  which  reads: 

That  they  regarded  it  as  a  transitional  measure  toward  the  adoption  of  a  higher 
imit  later  on. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Sofianopoulos,  of  the  Greek  delegation. 

Mr.  SOFIANOPOULOS  (Greece).  Mr.  President  and  gentle¬ 
men,  permit  me  to  present  the  view  of  the  Greek  Government  with 
regard  to  the  age  of  admission  of  children  to  work  in  the  various 
industries. 

The  wrork  of  children  has  been  regulated  in  Greece  by  the  law  of 
January  24,  1912  (No.  4029),  on  the  work  of  women  and  minors. 
Greece  undertook  the  enactment  of  this  law  in  view  of  the  following 
elementary  considerations:  First,  because  irregular  and  excessive 
physical  work  during  childhood  prevents  the  normal  development 
of  the  body  and  contributes  to  the  creation  of  weak  and  sickly 
generations  by  exhausting  prematurely  the  working  capacity  before 
its  full  development.  Secondly,  because  the  employment  of  chil¬ 
dren  who  have  not  reached  a  certain  age  does  not  allow  for  elementary 
instruction  and  creates  ignorant  generations  at  a  time  when  all  over 
Greece  the  primary  education  is  not  only  the  right  and  duty  of  every 
citizen,  but  also  an  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  State,  it  being  re¬ 
quired  by  a  constitutional  provision  to  afford  free  elementary  edu¬ 
cation  to  all  citizens.  Thirdly,  because  an  excessive  supply  of  child 
labor  would  not  only  lower  the  wages  of  adult  skilled  workers,  but 
would  also  injure  national  industry,  which,  by  employing  weak  and 
ignorant  labor,  would  not  be  in  a  position  to  attain  the  same  degree 
of  quality  and  efficiency  in  production  necessary  to  the  country  as 
would  be  attained  in  other  countries. 

Briefly,  the  laws  enacted  and  the  royal  decrees  issued  in  pur¬ 
suance  thereof  have  the  following  three  aims  in  view: 

(a)  To  prohibit  the  employment  of  minors  under  the  age  of  12  and 
gradually  to  limit  the  hours  of  the  work  between  the  ages  of  12  and  18. 

( b )  To  afford  a  complete  rest  on  Sundays  and  certain  other  holi¬ 
days  and  also  to  allow  definite  rest  periods  during  the  working  day. 

(c)  To  protect  the  health  and  bodily  welfare  of  minors  to  the 
point  of  prohibiting  not  only  night  work  as  well  as  day  work  in 
certain  industries  where  work  is  arduous  and  injurious  to  health, 
but  also  day  work  in  certain  branches  of  industries  below  a  stated  age. 

Now  as  regards  the  first  aim,  the  law  (art.  1)  prohibits  the  employ¬ 
ment  of  minors  under  the  age  of  12  as  workers  or  apprentices  in  the 
following  industries: 

(а)  Factories  and  workshops  of  large  as  well  as  small  scale  indus¬ 
tries. 

(б)  Mines  and  quarries  of  all  kinds. 

(c)  Construction  work  and  all  similar  work. 

(d)  Transportation  of  persons  and  merchandise  by  land  or  sea. 

( e )  Stores  and  department  stores  of  all  kinds. 

(/)  Restaurants,  cafes,  wine  shops,  confectioneries,  and  other 
similar  establishments. 

(g)  Ho1  els. 


The  law,  however,  takes  into  consideration  the  fact  that  in  those 
enterprises  where  the  father  is  at  the  head,  or  where  only  near  rela¬ 
tives  are  employed,  family  sentiment  will  prevent  the  illegal  ex¬ 
ploitation  of  the  child  worker.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  second 
paragraph  of  this  article  as  well  as  article  4  of  the  royal  decree  of  the 
14th  of  August,  1913,  specified  that  the  restriction  contained  in  the 
first  paragraph  is  no  longer  enforced  in  the  case  of  employment  of 
children  by  their  own  parents  or  guardians,  in  places  where  only  the 
members  of  the  family  are  employed,  when  the  children  have  at¬ 
tained  the  tenth  year,  and  when  such  employment  is  under  the 
direction  of  the  father,  mother,  or  guardian,  except  in  those  cases 
where  the  work  is  included  among  those  considered  as  unhealthy 
and  dangerous  by  the  law  or  those  which  are  performed  by  means  of 
mechanical  power. 

As  regards  the  second  aim,  article  5  of  the  law  stipulates  that 
minors  who  have  not  completed  their  sixteenth  year,  as  well  as 
women  without  distinction  as  to  age,  may  not  be  employed  in  estab¬ 
lishments  and  industries  mentioned  in  article  1. 

As  regards  the  third  aim,  article  10  stipulates  that  no  minor,  with¬ 
out  distinction  as  to  age,  not  having  completed  his  fourteenth  year 
may  sell  any  article  in  the  streets  or  any  other  public  place. 

From  this  brief  statement  it  is  clearly  seen  that  not  only  is  the 
employment  of  minors  who  have  not  completed  their  twelfth  year 
prohibited  in  Greece,  but  also  that  the  employment  of  those  who 
have  completed  their  eighteenth  year  is  subject  to  restrictions 
which  sufficiently  assure  their  physical  development.  Moreover, 
the  law  prohibits  the  employment  of  children  under  14  years  of 
age  who  have  not  received  an  elementary  school  certificate.  But 
if  you  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  elementary  instruction 
is  completed  at  the  age  of  12,  and  that  vocational  training  which 
comes  in  between  the  ages  of  12  and  14  is  not  yet  introduced  into 
Greece,  you  see  that  the  adoption  of  the  fourteenth  year  as  the  age 
of  admission  of  children  to  industry  will  be  harmful  rather  than 
beneficial  to  them,  for  during  the  period  which  they  are  not  under¬ 
going  instruction  and  are  without  occupation,  they  are  exposed  to 
all  the  dangers  of  idleness,  and  that,  too,  at  a  very  immature  age. 
That,  then,  is  the  reason  why  Greece  is  compelled  to  ask  a  slight 
extension  of  time  in  order  to  permit  her  to  organize  in  the  meantime 
her  system  of  vocational  training. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair’s  attention  has  been  called  to  the 
fact  that  the  representative  is  simply  reading  to  the  conference  a 
document  that  has  already  been  printed  and  distributed  to  the 
representatives  several  days  ago,  and,  if  that  is  true,  the  chair  would 
like  to  call  the  gentleman’s  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  simply 
consuming  the  time  of  the  conference  without  adding  anything  to 
the  knowledge  it  already  has. 

Mr.  SOFIANOPOULOS  ("Greece).  I  shall  finish  in  a  few  minutes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Proceed. 

Mr.  SOFIANOPOULOS  (Greece).  In  closing,  may  I  be  per¬ 
mitted,  gentlemen,  to  remind  you  that  the  purpose  of  the 
International  Labor  Conference  is  to  make  provisions  which 
may  be  more  or  less  uniform,  but  which  shall  always  take  into 
account  the  differences  and  the  special  conditions  which  exist  in 
the  various  countries.  The  reason  for  this  is  very  simple.  If  the 
legislators  of  any  country  are  at  times  compelled  to  make  gradual 
application  of  their  enactments  so  that  they  may  be  adapted  to 
different  sections  of  the  country,  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference,  which  is  practically  an  international  labor  parliament,  has 
still  greater  reason  than  have  ordinary  legislators  for  following  that 
path.  If  the  conference  does  not  follow  that,  line  of  procedure  at 
the  beginning  of  its  labors,  its  work  runs  risks  of  being  ignored, 
so  to  speak,  by  the  various  parliaments  which,  on  account  of  the 
peculiar  conditions  existing  in  their  countries,  can  not  pronounce 
themselves  in  favor  of  this  work. 

If  on  the  contrary  the  conference  gives  more  elasticity  to  its 
resolutions,  the  work  will  b«  crowned  with  success  in  a  very  short 


14G8G5°—  20 


98 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


time,  and  the  regulations  of  the  conference  will  he  uniformly  put 
into  effect  throughout  the  civilized  world.  For  the  reasons  which  1 
have  just  given,  permit  me,  Mr.  President,  on  behalf  of  my  Gov¬ 
ernment,  to  present  the  following  amendment  to  article  1  of  the 
draft  convention: 

Countries  which  have  not  yet  systematically  introduced  vocational  training  shall 
benefit  by  an  extension  of  three  years  from  the  time  when  the  convention  shall  go 
into  effect  for  the  various  countries. 

During  this  period  these  countries  shall  he  authorized  to  permit  the  employment 
in  the  above-mentioned  industries  of  children  who  have  not  yet  fully  completed 
14  years  of  age  but  have  passed  the  age  of  12,  on  condition  that  these  children  shall 
have  received  an  elementary  school  certificate  and  on  condition  that  they  shall 
produce  a  medical  certificate  of  physical  ability,  as  may  be  required  by  the  legis¬ 
lation  of  each  country. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  desires  again  to  call  the  attention 
of  representatives  to  article  13  of  the  standing  orders,  as  follows: 

All  amendments  or  motions  must  be  handed  in  to  the  secretary  of  the  conference. 
They  will  be  printed  for  the  sitting  on  the  day  following  that  on  which  they  have 
been  handed  in.  As  a  general  rule,  no  amendment  or  motion  shall  be  discussed  or 
made  the  subject  of  a  vote  in  the  course  of  a  sitting  unless  it  has  been  circulated  not 
later  than  the  beginning  of  that  sitting  to  all  the  members  of  the  conference,  as  pro¬ 
vided  in  article  11  of  the  standing  orders.  The  president  may,  however,  permit  the 
discussion  of  amendments  dealing  with  minor  modifications  of  text  under  discussion 
or  of  motions  as  to  procedure. 

The  amendment  proposed  by  the  representative  from  Greece  is 
not  simply  a  minor  amendment,  but  is  a  major  amendment  and 
would,  therefore,  not  be  in  order  at  this  time. 

Mr.  SOFIANOPOULOS  (Greece).  Well,  let  copies  of  the  amend¬ 
ment  which  I  have  brought  before  the  conference  be  distributed  in 
order  that  it  may  be  discussed  to-morrow  in  the  regular  order  of 
business. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  will  be  received,  will  be 
put  into  the  record,  and  will  be  available  for  discussion  to-morrow, 
if  this  question  has  not  been  disposed  of  prior  to  that  time.  If  the 
question  is  disposed  of  to-day,  the  amendment  as  it  has  been  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  representative  from  Greece  would,  of  course,  not  be 
taken  up  for  consideration  to-morrow,  because  the  question  would 
not  then  be  before  the  house. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to  move  a  closure 
of  the  debate  upon  the  pending  motion,  if  I  have  seconder. 
I  think  we  have  heard  all  the  pros  and  cons  on  that  particular  ques¬ 
tion,  and  I  move  that  the  debate  be  now  closed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  that  debate  be  closed 
on  the  pending  motion.  You  have  heard  the  motion. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  to  close  debate  is  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr .  Stuart-Bun- 
ning  and  moved  by  Miss  Bondfield.  As  many  as  favor  the  amend¬ 
ment  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised 
until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  vote  for  the  amendment  is  39  against  21.  The  amendment 
is  therefore  agreed  to.  [Applause.]  The  question  now  recurs  on 
the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  that  the  report  of  the  com¬ 
mission  be  adopted  as  amended  and  referred  to  the  draft  committee. 

May  the  chair  take  this  opportunity  of  expressing  his  view  with 
regard  to  the  parliamentary  status,  that  in  adopting  and  referring 
this  report  to  a  draft  committee  it  is  not  the  final  vote  upon  the 
draft  and  that  it  will  not  require  the  two-thirds  vote  to  adopt  and 
refer;  that  when  the  final  draft  is  presented  for  consideration  of  the 
conference  then  it  will  require  the  two-thirds  vote.  That  is  the 
chair’s  understanding  of  the  parliamentary  status. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  bea  to  move 
the  closure. 


The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  that  debate  on  the  main 
question  be  closed. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  to  close  debate  on  the  main  question 
will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to. 

As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  commission  as 
amended  and  its  reference  to  the  draft  committee  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

It  is  agreed  to. 

The  next  order  of  business  is  the  report  of  the  committee  on  un¬ 
healthy  processes.  The  chairman  of  the  committee,  Dr.  Legge,  is 
recognized. 

Dr.  LEGGE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  I  preface  my  re¬ 
marks  by  saying  that  the  committee  is  responsible  for  only  what 
appears  in  small  type  in  the  report  and  that  I  am  responsible  for 
what  appears  in  larger  type  in  the  printed  report.  In  presenting 
this  report  and  asking  for  its  adoption,  the  conference  may  desire  me 
to  state  what  the  committee  thought  may  be  the  line  determined  on 
should  the  proposals  commend  themselves  to  the  members.  This  is 
easy  enough  to  do  in  regard  to  the  resolutions  on  the  use  of  mercury 
in  hatters’  furriers’  processes  and  carbonic  oxide  gas,  and  on  the 
question  of  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  white  lead  in  house  painting, 
which,  remember,  is  not  a  resolution,  but  a  suggestion  in  that  report, 
as  it  was  ruled  not  to  come  within  the  terms  of  the  agenda.  All  we 
suggest  in  regard  to  those  three  points  is  that  they  should  be  referred 
to  the  International  Labor  Office  with  the  object  of  having  them 
placed  on  the  agenda  at  the  next  international  conference.  The 
resolution,  however,  on  the  guiding  principle  leading  to  limitation 
or  otherwise  of  women’s  employment  in  unhealthy  processes  and  the 
specific  recommendations  made  in  regard  to  lead  industries,  is  on  a 
different  footing.  This  principle — and  by  it  is  meant  a  test  to  apply 
thus:  Does  the  work  in  question  tend  to  affect  deleteriously  the  off- 
spring  of  the  mother  by  inducing  premature  or  still  births — the 
committee  feels  needs  no  further  elaboration. 

It  is,  they  consider,  self-evident  and,  similarly,  the  committee 
feel  that  recommendations  made  in  regard  to  the  employment  of 
women  in  lead  processes  carry  out  this  principle  in  detail,  at  any 
rate  in  the  present  state  of  knowledge,  and  with  reference  to  them  no 
further  inquiry  is  needed.  Consequently,  no  useful  purpose  would 
be  served  by  further  referring  them  to  the  International  Labor  Office. 
They  are  ripe  for  consideration  under  the  terms  of  article  405  of  the 
peace  treaty,  with  a  view  to  effect  being  given  to  that  guiding  prin¬ 
ciple  and  to  the  recommendation  on  women’s  employment  in  lead, 
by  communicating  them  to  the  different  Governments  united  in  the 
League  of  Nations,  for  action  to  be  taken  by  national  legislation,  or 
otherwise. 

The  time  at  our  disposal  did  not  allow  us  to  apply  the  principle 
to  other  unhealthy  processes,  but  the  committee,  though  of  opinion 
that  it  is  probably  of  universal  application,  have  so  far  only  consid¬ 
ered  it  in  relation  to  lead  poisoning  and  does  not,  therefore,  feel  jus¬ 
tified  in  proceeding  further  than  they  have  done. 

The  committee  trusts  that  the  conference  will  communicate  in 
the  same  way  the  general  considerations  embodied  in  the  report  as 
to  the  advantage  of  a  medical  department  attached  to  Government 
offices  charged  with  the  administration  of  factory  laws  for  safeguard¬ 
ing  the  health  of  workers. 

The  committee  recommend  procedure  in  regard  to  disinfection  of 
wool  against  anthrax  by  means  of  a  draft  international  convention, 
but  it  does  not  say  when  or  how'  the  convention  should  be  framed. 
Women  and  children  are  attacked  by  anthrax,  though  not  to  the  same 
extent  as  men  are,  just  as  women  and  children  suffer  from  lead  poison- 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


ing  in  a  less  degree  than  men  do,  and  the  committee  are  of  opinion 
that  the  subject  comes  within  the  limits  of  the  agenda  of  the  confer¬ 
ence.  The  question  for  decision  now  is  what  steps  should  be  taken 
by  the  conference  to  give  effect  to  the  proposals  of  the  committee  if 
approved  by  the  conference. 

I  venture  to  propose  first  that  the  proposals  should  be  embodied 
in  a  recommendation  under  the  terms  of  article  405  of  the  treaty, 
and  secondly  that  the  subject  should  be  placed  on  the  agenda  for 
the  conference  of  1920,  with  a  view  to  the  adoption  of  a  definite 
convention.  The  effect  of  such  a  procedure  would  be  this:  The 
conference  would  send  to  the  various  Governments  a  recommenda¬ 
tion  embodying  the  general  principle  of  disinfection  of  certain  kinds 
of  wool  in  the  country  of  export  or,  if  that  is  not  possible  or  practi¬ 
cable,  at  the  port  of  entry.  The  Government,  in  accordance  with 
the  provision  of  the  treaty,  would  consider  the  proposal  in  the  in¬ 
terval  before  the  next  conference  and,  we  may  hope,  will  adopt  it. 
Then  at  the  next  conference  the  actual  terms  of  a  convention  would 
be  brought  up  for  consideration. 

I  beg,  therefore,  to  move  that  the  report  be  adopted,  and  that 
the  proposals  of  the  committee  in  regard  to  lead  and  anthrax  be 
referred  to  the  drafting  committee  in  the  form  of  a  recommendation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Dr.  Legge 
that  the  report  of  the  commission  be  agreed  to  and  referred  to  the 
drafting  committee  for  the  preparation  of  recommendations. 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  I  am  not  clear,  from  Dr.  Legge’s  ex¬ 
planation,  what  procedure  exactly  is  proposed.  As  you,  as  presi¬ 
dent,  have  put  it  now,  the  conference  would  remit  this  report  to  the 
drafting  committee  for  the  preparation  of  a  draft  convention.  I 
understood  Dr.  Legge’s  proposal  to  be  something  entirely  different. 
His  proposal,  in  reality,  amounted  to  this,  that  the  conference  should 
decide  to  place  this  question  on  next  year’s  agenda.  I  think  there 
is  some  doubt  whether  the  whole  question,  as  affecting  not  only 
women  and  children,  but  also  men,  comes  within  this  year  s 
agenda.  If  there  is  any  doubt  about  that,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
most  suitable  course  to  follow  would  be  that  this  conference  should 
decide,  in  the  manner  provided  in  the  treaty,  that  the  question 
should  be  included  in  next  year’s  agenda.  I  rise  to  speak  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  information,  Mr.  President,  because  I 
am  not  quite  clear  how  we  stand. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair’s  understanding  of  the  motion  of 
Dr.  Legge  was  that  this  matter  should  be  submitted  to  the  draft 
committee,  not  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  a  draft  convention  but 
for  the  purpose  of  preparing  a  recommendation  to  the  respective 
Governments  that  they  might  act  upon  during  the  current  year, 
and  that  the  question  might  then  again  come  up  for  consideration 
on  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference,  when,  at  that  time  it  might, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  conference,  be  formed  into  a  draft  convention. 
That  is  my  understanding  of  the  purpose  and  intent  of  Dr.  Legge’s 
motion. 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  I  submit,  Mr.  President,  that  that  is 
a  procedure  which  is  not  contemplated  in  the  peace  treaty.  A 
recommendation  is  only  slightly  different  from  a  draft  convention, 
and  a  recommendation  is  arrived  at  after  a  long  process  and  the 
matter  has  been  brought  into  the  conference  for  discussion. 

1  think,  perhaps,  it  would  be  well  to  obtain  from  Dr.  Legge  an 
explanation  of  whether  your  interpretation  of  his  resolution  accu¬ 
rately  represents  his  intention. 

I  may  say  that  my  only  excuse  for  intervening  is  that  in  this 
particular  matter  of  anthrax  India  is  the  country  mainly  concerned. 
That  is  my  only  excuse  for  intervening. 

Dr.  LEGGE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  the  view  that  you 
have  expressed  is  substantially  what  I  said.  The  only  slight  point  of 
difference  is  that  you  said  that  after  the  recommendation  had  been 
sent  to  the  various  Governments  they  would  consider  action.  Well, 
they  would  consider  that  recommendation.  Whether  they  would 
take  action  on  it  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  but  that  is  the  intention. 
It  would  go  as  a  recommendation,  in  the  hope  that  they  would 


99 

consider  action,  and  then  at  the  next  conference  it  would  appear  on 
the  agenda  with  a  draft  convention  attached. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Boulin. 

Dr.  BOULIN  (France).  As  a  member  of  the  commission,  I  de¬ 
sire  to  say  a  few  words  in  order  to  show  the  sense  in  which  we  took 
the  words  “recommendation”  and  “convention.” 

Three  points  were  examined.  The  first  point  was  lead  industries. 
The  commission  was  sufficiently  informed  upon  the  dangers  from 
lead  and  upon  the  means  of  preventing  these  dangers  to  be  able  to 
make  immediate  recommendations  regarding  all  these  lead  indus¬ 
tries.  As  regards  other  industries,  mercury  and  white  lead,  the 
commission  requested  that  studies  be  made  by  the  International 
Labor  Office. 

As  regards  anthrax,  it  seems  to  be  evident  from  the  very  clear  and 
succinct  explanation  given  by  Dr.  Legge  that  the  question  can  not 
be  settled  otherwise  than  internationally.  In  fact,  in  the  22  years 
that  it  has  been  tried  in  England,  national  regulation  has  not  yet 
succeeded  in  eliminating  cases  of  infection  from  anthrax;  but  on 
the  contrary,  these  cases  are  increasing  instead  of  diminishing. 
Therefore,  international  measures  must  be  taken  to  obviate  these 
dangers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Miall,  of  Great  Britain. 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain  I  Mr.  President,  this  question  of 
anthrax  is  a  very  good  example  to  us  for  the  future,  when  we  con¬ 
sider  how  important  questions  may  be  dealt  with  by  a  committee 
appointed  at  such  a  conference.  The  disinfection  of  wool  in  con¬ 
nection  with  anthrax,  I  believe,  affects  a  very  large  number  of 
workpeople  engaged  both  in  India  and  Great  Britain;  and  a  regula¬ 
tion  which  could  be  somewhat  hastily  thrust  upon  a  great  industry 
like  the  woolen  industry  might  have  very  serious  consequences 
which  were  not  anticipated  by  those  who  framed  the  particular 
regulation.  I  am  given  to  understand  that  hasty  legislation  on  this 
matter  might  have  the  effect  of  diverting  a  considerable  volume  of 
trade  which  now  goes  from  India  to  Great  Britain,  and  that  the 
matter  is  one,  really,  of  considerable  national  importance. 

Now,  the  question  of  anthrax,  which  was  barely  indicated  in  the 
agenda  which  was  put  before  us,  comes,  I  think,  as  a  matter  of  some 
surprise  to  those  who  are  interested  in  the  question  and  who  did 
not  realize  until  they  came  to  this  conference  that  a  matter  of  very 
great  national  importance  could  be  brought  forward  with  com¬ 
paratively  little  notice  to  them,  and  I  venture  to  suggest  that 
similar  experiences  may  obtain  in  the  future.  We  are  proposing  to 
throw  on  the  International  Labor  Office,  and  in  particular  the  health 
section  which  is  to  be  created — we  intend  to  throw  on  that  health 
section  a  great  mass  of  work.  So  far  as  injurious  processes  are  con¬ 
cerned,  it  is  not  primarily  a  case  of  investigating  main  principles. 
As  a  rule  it  is  the  detailed  examination  of  how  to  apply  particular 
precautions  to  varied  and  different  industries,  and  that  means  the 
examination  of  a  great  mass  of  statistics,  and  going  into  chemical 
and  medical  data,  which  requires  a  good  deal  of  time,  and  can  not 
accurately  be  done  in  a  hurried  manner. 

Now,  I  think  it  is  most  important  that  a  good  deal  of  that  sort  of 
work  shall  be  gotten  ready  and  prepared  in  advance  of  the  future 
conferences,  and  that  both  employers  and  workers  shall  have  the 
opportunity  of  keeping  in  touch  with  this  preparation  of  detailed 
statistics  and  detailed  recommendations,  so  that  the  employers  and 
the  workers  shall  know  beforehand  all  the  proposals  affecting  their 
own  industries  that  are  likely  to  come  up  for  consideration  and  that 
they  may  instruct  their  delegates  accordingly.  It  is  also  of  con¬ 
siderable  importance  that  the  members  of  the  health  section  shall 
have  the  advantage  of  the  knowledge  and  experience  of  the  em¬ 
ployers  and  workers  who  have  had  to  face  these  problems,  and  I 
think  that  close  cooperation  between  the  employers  and  the  workers 
with  the  health  section,  which  is  about  to  be  created,  is  a  matter 
of  the  utmost  importance. 

And  if,  sir,  I  am  in  order,  I  would  like  to  make  a  motion,  a  copy  of 
which  I  have  handed  to  the  secretary.  I  do  not  know  whether  you 
consider  I  am  entitled  to  move  that  or  not,  sir. 


100 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  not  seen  the  motion  which 
Dr.  Mi  ill  refers  to. 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  It  was  handed  up,  I  believe,  to 
Mr.  Butler,  sir.  but  I  have  another  copy,  as  follows: 

That  an  advisory  committee  on  which  the  Governments,  the  employers,  and  the 
workers  should  all  be  represented  be  appointed  to  act  in  an  auxiliary  capacity  and 
to  keep  in  touch  with  the  activities  of  the  health  section  of  the  International  Labor 
Office. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  would  scarcely  look  upon  this 
motion  as  being  germane  to  the  subject  before  the  house.  It  is 
general  in  its  character  and  will  be  printed  and  go  over  for  considera¬ 
tion  later. 

Mr.  REES  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  in  view  of  the  unanimity 
of  opinion  of  this  committee,  I  move  the  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  to  close  the  debate  on 
this  question. 

As  many  as  favor  closing  debate  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  to  close  debate  is  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  move  that  we  do 
now  adjourn.  There  are  a  large  number  of  delegates  absent  from 
the  meeting  at  the  present  time  who  no  doubt  would  like  to  vote 
one  way  or  the  other  on  some  of  these  very  important  questions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  closure  is  announced.  The  hour  of 
adjournment  having  arrived,  the  conference  will  adjourn  until  2.30 
to-morrow  afternoon. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.05  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Thursday,  November  20,  1919,  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino 
Belgium: 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Michel  Ldvie) 

Mr.  Alexandre  Delmer  (substitute 
for  Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim). 

Mr.  M.  Fraipont  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Jules  Carlier). 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Mr.  Loring  C.  Christie  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons). 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio 


China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  Los  Reyes. 

Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnacs. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen 
Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 


Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  P.  Boulin  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Arthur  Fontaine). 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  P.  Collinet  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Louis  Guerin). 

Mr.  Dumoulin  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ldon  Jouhaux). 

Great  Britain: 

Dr.  Legge  (substitute  for  Right  Hon. 

G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Dr.  S.  Miall  (substitute  for  Mr.  D.  S- 
Marjoribanks). 

Miss  Margaret  Bondfield  (substitute 
for  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzfene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray, 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Shichiro  Muto  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Uhei  Mazumoto). 

Netherlands: 

Mrs.  S.  Groeneweg  (substitute  for 
Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens). 

Miss  H.  Kuvper  (subsitute  for  Mr. 

G.  J.  Van  Thienen). 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  P.  Serrarens  (substitute  for  Mr. 
J.  Oudegeest). 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 


Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  A.  Zulieta. 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manue1  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  M.  Jastrzebowski  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny). 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda 
Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Mr.  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substituet 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Sant03  A.  Dominici 


FIFTEENTH  SESSION— THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER  20,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.45  o’clock  p.  m.,  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches  (Italy)  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  conference  is  called  to  order.  The 
secretary  general  will  make  an  announcement  to  the  assembly. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  drafting  committee  ex¬ 
pressed  a  wish  that  a  Spanish-speaking  member  should  be  added  to 
their  number.  The  commission  of  selection  accordingly  propose 
that  M.  Espil  should  be  a  member  of  the  drafting  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  objections  to  the  appointment 
of  Mr.  Espil? 

If  there  are  no  objections  the  appointment  will  stand. 

We  must  resume  work  at  the  point  where  it  was  interrupted  yester¬ 
day  by  the  vote  of  closure,  i.  e.,  at  that  point  in  Dr.  Legge’s  speech 
where  he  said:  “Consequently  I  ask  that  the  report  be  adopted.’’ 


We  are  now  concerned  with  the  question  of  referring  the  r,eport  to 
the  committee  on  drafting.  1  shall  put  the  matter  to  a  vote. 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  May  I  beg  a  point  of  order,  sir? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Miall  is  requested  to  state  whether  he 
wishes  his  motion  to  he  voted  on  before  the  motion  referring  the 
report  to  the  committee  on  drafting. 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  I  moved  a  resolution  yesterday, 
which  is  standing  in  my  name,  and  the  president  ruled  that  it  was 
not  germane  to  the  present  discussion;  but,  as  the  report  of  the  com¬ 
mission  on  unhealthy  processes  recommends  that  a  health  section  of 
the  International  Labor  Office  be  set  up,  and  as  the  motion  which  I 
have  put  forward  recommends  that  that  health  section  should,  by 
means  of  a  committee,  he  kept  in  touch  also  with  the  employers  and 
the  workers,  I  think  that  the  -ubject  of  my  motion  is  distinctly 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


101 


germane  to  the  present  report,  and  1  have  written  a  letter  to  the 
secretary  general  asking  that  this  motion  may  be  taken  in  conjunc¬ 
tion  with  the  report ;  and  I  should  be  glad  to  know  whether  the  motion 
standing  in  my  name  can  be  taken  before  this  discussion  is  closed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  I  understand  rightly,  we  are  first  to  vote 
on  referring  the  report  to  the  committee,  and  then  we  are  to  discuss 
I)r.  Miall's  proposal.  Does  Dr.  Miall  agree? 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  the  discussion  of  the 
report,  I  understand,  is  closed.  All  that  I  am  anxious  about  is  that 
a  motion  standing  in  my  name  should  be  discussed  either  immedi¬ 
ately  after  the  report  is  adopted,  or  the  standing  orders  should  be 
varied  so  as  to  allow  it  to  be  discussed  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  being  understood,  the  motion  on  refer¬ 
ring  the  report  to  the  committee  on  drafting  will  be  put  td  a  vote. 
All  those  in  favor  hold  up  their  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

Those  opposed  hold  up  their  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

The  motion  is  carried,  32  votes  to  2. 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 
ask  your  ruling  whether  that  vote  is  a  valid  one? 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  a  mere  majority  is  required,  then  we 
have  that  majority.  In  this  particular  instance  a  majority  does  not 
seem  to  be  called  for. 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  Mr.  President,  I  ask  your  ruling 
whether  under  our  standing  orders  the  votes  cast  for  or  against  a 
proposal  must,  in  the  aggregate,  amount  to  half  the  number  of  the 
members  present  at  the  conference,  not  present  at  the  meeting? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  would  not  be  valid,  as  less  than  half 
of  the  members  of  the  conference  are  present.  The  vote  is  postponed. 

It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that,  although  there  are  not  enough 
members  now  present,  we  would  have  the  proper  number  if  all  the 
people  in  the  corridors  would  come  into  the  conference  room.  There¬ 
fore  let  us  wait  for  a  moment. 

As  we  are  going  to  vote  upon  another  matter  immediately  after¬ 
wards,  which  would  also  be  affected  by  the  lack  of  a  majority,  I 
propose  that  the  conference  take  a  recess  for  a  few  minutes  until  we 
have  the  necessary  number,  and  I  beg  everyone  to  keep  his  seat. 
Many  of  our  colleagues  are  now  at  committee  meetings  in  other  parts 
of  the  building.  They  have  been  notified  that  there  is  a  vote  to  be 
taken,  and  they  will  be  here  shortly,  so  that  we  may  have  the  proper 
number. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  If  there  are  not  enough  members  present 
to  take  a  vote,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  conference  might  make  use 
of  the  time  by  proceeding  to  other  matters  while  waiting  for  a 
quorum . 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  a  difficulty  in  the  way  of  comply¬ 
ing  with  the  request  made  by  Mr.  Ilg.  Immediately  after  the  vote 
for  which  we  are  now  waiting  another  will  have  to  be  taken  on  Dr. 
Miall’s  proposal. 

There  is  also  another  proposal,  to  postpone  both  the  vote  on  refer¬ 
ring  the  report  to  the  committee  on  drafting  and  the  vote  on  Mr. 
Miall’s  proposal  to  such  time  as  we  may  be  sure  of  having  the  num¬ 
ber  of  voters  required  by  our  rides,  and  to  pass  on,  if  you  so  desire, 
to  the  next  matter  in  hand,  which  is  the  night  work  of  women. 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  May  I  ask  whether  in  that  case  it  is 
possible  to  fix  a  time  when  the  report  of  the  commission  on  un¬ 
healthy  processes  and  on  my  resolution  may  be  considered? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  shall  now  answer  Dr.  Miall  and  any  others 
who  may  have  the  same  suggestion  to  make.  During  the  few 
minutes  in  which  we  have  discussed  these  various  points  of  proce¬ 
dure.  probably  the  room  has  filled  up,  and  there  are  now  enough 
members  present  to  make  a  vote  valid. 

I  shall  now  put  to  a  vote  the  motion  referring  Dr.  Legge’s  report 
to  the  committee  on  drafting,  and  I  ask  all  those  in  favor  to  raise 
their  right  hands. 

f Votes  counted]. 


Sixty-two  members  are  now  present.  Those  opposed  to  referring 
Dr.  Legge’s  motion  to  the  committee  on  drafting  will  please  raise 
their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted]. 

The  motion  to  refer  Dr.  Legge’s  report  to  the  committee  on  draft¬ 
ing  is  carried.  I  now  put  Dr.  Miall’s  motion  to  a  vote.  The  text 
is  as  follows — - 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  On  a  point  of  order,  sir,  may  I  ask 
that  the  resolution  standing  in  my  name  be  discussed  before  it  is 
put  to  the  meeting? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Miall  requests  that  his  motion  be  dis¬ 
cussed  before  being  voted  upon.  1  will  therefore  read  it.  Dr.  Miall 
requests: 

That  an  advisory  committee  be  appointed  on  which  Government,  employers’, 
and  workers’  representatives  should  be  included;  and  that  said  committee  be  ap¬ 
pointed  at  once,  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  activities  of  the  health  department  of 
the  International  Labor  Office. 

The  floor  is  open  for  discussion  of  Dr.  Miall’s  proposal. 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  I  am  placed  some¬ 
what  at  a  disadvantage  in  opening  the  discussion  on  this  resolution, 
as  it  does  not  appear  on  the  program  for  to-day  as  set  out  in  the  daily 
bulletin,  and  a  number  of  documents  which  I  wished  to  have  before 
me  when  this  discussion  should  take  place  I  have  not  with  me  at  the 
moment.  But  I  think  I  have  already  explained  in  general  terms  the 
reason  for  this  particular  resolution.  The  recommendation  of  the 
committee  on  unhealthy  processes  is  to  the  effect  that  a  health  section 
should  be  created  for  the  International  Laboi  Office,  which  should 
keep  itself  in  touch  with  the  inspectors  of  the  medical  departments 
of  the  various  Governments.  I  submit,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is 
not  sufficient,  in  a  complicated  and  detailed  subject  like  injurious 
processes,  that  the  health  department  should  merely  keep  in  touch 
with  the  inspectors  of  the  different  countries.  It  is  of  vital  impor¬ 
tance  to  the  employers  and  to  the  workers  in  all  the  trades  which  wall 
come  under  the  investigation  of  this  health  department  that  they 
shall  know  a  sufficient  time  before  the  conference  what  is  being  pro¬ 
posed  and  the  nature  of  the  evidence  upon  which  the  recommenda¬ 
tions  of  the  health  department  will  be  based.  We  can  see  from  the 
instance  of  anthrax  and  its  treatment  at  this  conference  how  easy 
it  is  for  important  mistakes  to  be  made  and  how  easy  it  is  for  a  matter 
of  very  great  national  importance  to  be  hastily  put  forward  at  a  con¬ 
ference  when  some  of  those  most  intimately  concerned  in  the  prob¬ 
lem  have  had  little  or  no  notice  of  the  great  changes  that  are  recom¬ 
mended. 

I  venture  to  think  it  is  quite  impossible  for  a  health  department, 
presided  over,  as  it  no  doubt  will  be,  by  a  distinguished  medical 
man,  to  bring  forward  suitable  recommendations  and  to  collect  the 
necessary  information,  unless  that  department  has  the  cooperation 
and  assistance  both  of  employers  and  of  workers.  It  is  hardly  neces¬ 
sary  for  me  to  elaborate  that  point.  But  the  conduct  of  this  con¬ 
ference  in  matters  of  injurious  processes  can  not  be  carried  on  in 
a  purely  bureaucratic  manner.  There  must  be,  in  my  opinion,  that 
intimate  cooperation  which  can  only  be  secured  if  the  employers 
and  workers  are  invited  to  assist  in  these  preliminary  investigations, 
and  I  think  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  do  more  than  indicate  that 
in  moving  my  resolution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  Dr.  Miall  develop  his  theme. 
The  discussion  being  open  any  member  wishing  to  speak  is  invited 
to  ask  for  the  floor. 

If  no  one  requests  the  floor,  and  Dr.  Miall  is  willing,  I  shall  put  his 
motion  to  a  vote. 

As  no  one  wishes  to  speak  to  the  question  I  am  going  to  put  to  a 
vote  Dr.  Miall’s  motion,  of  which  you  have  heard  me  read  the  French 
version,  and  the  interpreter  the  English  text. 

All  those  in  favor  of  Dr.  Miall’s  motion  please  raise  their  right 
hands. 

The  votes  in  favor  of  the  motion  being  counted,  all  tnose  opposed 
to  Dr.  Miall’s  motion  please  raise  their  right  hands. 

[The  motion  was  adopted  unanimously.] 


102 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


We  have  now,  gentlemen,  to  change  the  subject  of  our  discussions. 
We  shall  pass  on,  if  you  please,  to  discussion  of  the  report  on  the 
work  of  women.  Miss  Constance  Smith,  the  reporter,  will  kindly 
come  forward  to  present  her  report. 

Miss  SMITH  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  in  presenting  the 
report  of  the  committee  on  the  employment  of  women,  as  regards 
the  employment  of  women  at  night,  it  is  not  necessary  for  me 
to  go  formally  over  the  points  of  the  report,  which  is  already  in 
your  hands.  There  are,  however,  certain  points  in  that  report  on 
which  it  will  be  advisable  that  I  should  add  a  few  words  of  explana¬ 
tion. 

First,  I  would  like  to  point  out  that  the  committee,  having  decided 
to  confine  their  considerations  to  the  extension  and  application  of 
the  convention  of  Bern,  1906,  began  by  agreeing  unanimously  to 
support  the  principle  embodied  in  that  convention.  This  is,  I 
think,  a  significant  action.  Since  the  convention  of  Bern  came  into 
force,  a  number  of  countries  in  which  for  years  past  it  had  not  been 
customary  and  had  not  been  legal  to  employ  women  at  night  have 
been  forced  by  the  circumstances  of  a  great  war  to  suspend  for  the 
time  being  their  factory  law  and  to  admit  women  to  night  work. 
Nevertheless,  the  point  of  view  that  night  work  for  women  is  unde¬ 
sirable,  that  its  prohibition  should  be  as  far  as  possible  universal, 
has  not  been  weakened  by  war  experience,  and  we  had  no  opposition 
in  our  committee  to  the  request  for  support  of  the  principle  of  the 
convention  of  Bern. 

In  examining  the  convention  it  became  at  once  clear  that  the 
change  in  the  situation  created  by  the  establishment  of  the  League 
of  Nations  would  necessitate  certain  changes  in  the  form  of  the 
convention,  and  it  also  became  clear  that  there  was  a  strong  feeling 
in  favor  of  introducing  into  the  convention  certain  changes,  or, 
perhaps  to  speak  more  correctly,  of  drafting  a  new  convention  in 
which  certain  changes  should  be  embodied.  It  was  felt  that  in  one 
or  two  cases  definitions  lacked  clearness  and  that  in  one  instance 
public  opinion  had  gone  beyond  the  standard  taken  up  in  the 
convention  of  Bern. 

To  take  the  second  point  first,  in  the  convention  of  Bern,  in  the 
first  article,  second  paragraph,  these  words  occur: 

The  present  convention  applies  to  all  industrial  undertakings  in  which  more  than- 
10  men  or  women  are  employed.  It  does  not  in  any  case  apply  to  undertakings  in 
which  only  the  members  of  the  family  are  employed. 

The  committee  was  of  opinion  that  the  time  had  come  when  this 
distinction  as  to  numbers  in  extending  protection  to  women  should 
be  abolished.  The  tendency  to  abolish  such  limitation  of  pro¬ 
tective  legislation  is  very  strong,  has  been  strong  for  years,  and  it 
may  be  pointed  out  and  should,  I  think,  be  remembered  that  all 
experience  shows  that  it  is  often  precisely  in  the  smaller  industries 
that  the  protection  of  the  law  is  most  needed.  In  large  establish¬ 
ments  during  the  war  it  was  found  possible  to  supply  certain  cor¬ 
rectives  and  safeguards  for  the  Women  who  had  to  be  employed  at 
night  under  stress  of  war  pressure.  In  the  small  establishments 
such  safeguards  were  introduced  only  with  great  difficulty,  and  in 
the  smallest  kind  of  establishments  such  as  the  old  convention  of 
Bern  had  in  view  it  would  have  been  almost  impossible  to  introduce 
them. 

The  proposal  therefore  is  to  delete  the  limiting  words  from  the 
second  paragraph  of  the  first  article,  which  would  then  read  as 
follows: 

The  present  convention  does  not  in  any  case  apply  to  undertakings  In  which  only 
the  members  of  the  family  are  employed. 

With  regard  to  the  second  amendment,  it  is  really  one  of  con¬ 
venience.  It  was  felt  to  be  desirable  that  the  definition  of  indus¬ 
trial  undertakings  should  as  far  as  possible  be  identical  in  all  the 
draft  conventions  presented  to  this  conference,  and  the  committee 
on  women’s  employment  have  therefore  adopted  in  place  of  the 
general  and  vague  definition  of  an  industrial  undertaking  in  the 
Bern  convention  the  definition  which  has  been  adopted  in  other 
draft  conventions,  such  as  that  relating  to  the  employment  of  chil¬ 
dren.  It  will  not  be  necessary  for  me  to  read  this  convention  which 
16  before  you  in  the  record  for  the  18th  of  November. 


The  third  proposed  amendment  of  the  convention  of  Bern  is  a 
new  article,  and  the  only  new  article  which  is  proposed.  It  was 
introduced  into  the  draft  convention  in  order  to  facilitate  the  ad¬ 
herence  to  the  convention  of  certain  countries  hampered  by  climatic 
conditions  or  backward  industrial  organization.  It  was  made  clear 
to  us,  for  instance,  by  the  representatives  from  India  on  the  commit¬ 
tee  that  their  Government  would  not  be  able  to  adhere  to  the  con¬ 
vention,  and  that  this  convention  would  not  find  possible  execution 
in  India,  because  of  the  different  definitions  of  a  factory  in  India  and 
in  Europe.  Since  the  factory  law  of  India  only  applies  to  estab¬ 
lishments  employing  50  persons  or  more,  the  convention,  even  if  it 
were  applied  to  India,  would  be  a  dead  letter,  not  corresponding 
with  the  factory  law,  and  at  the  same  time  it  was  held  of  great  im¬ 
portance  and  value  to  have  adherence  from  such  a  country  as  India 
to  the  convention.  We  therefore  accepted  in  the  committee  the 
third  amendment,  which  prescribed  that  in  countries  covered  by 
article  405  of  the  peace  treaty,  clause  3 — 

The  application  of  the  provision  of  this  present  convention  may  be  suspended  in 
such  industrial  undertakings  as  may  be  defined  in  that  respect  by  the  Government  of 
the  country,  provided  that  they  should  continue  to  be  applicable  to  all  establish¬ 
ments  which  are  factories  by  the  national  law. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  ask  delegates  to  listen  attentively,  and  to 
suspend  private  conversation  in  order  to  give  Miss  Constance  Smith 
the  opportunity  of  making  her  argument  heard. 

Miss  SMITH  (Great  Britain).  The  proposal  to  omit  the  fourth 
paragraph  of  article  8  requires,  I  think,  no  comment  beyond  the 
explanation  which  you  will  find  printed  in  the  report  itself.  All 
these  amendments  were  presented  to  the  committee  by  the  sub¬ 
committee  to  which  they  had  been  referred,  and  in  which  they  were 
carefully  discussed.  The  report  of  the  subcommittee  was  unani¬ 
mously  adopted.  After  the  adoption  of  that  report  by  the  committee 
an  amendment  was  moved  by  a  delegate  from  Japan  to  substitute 
the  words  “one  year”  for  the  words  “two  years”  in  the  third  para¬ 
graph  of  article  8,  thus  shortening  by  a  year  the  delay  laid  down  in  the 
convention  of  Bern  to  ensue  after  the  adherence  to  the  convention 
should  have  been  made  and  legislative  steps  taken  by  an  adhering 
country.  This  resolution  was  carried  by  a  substantial  majority. 

One  other  resolution  was  brought  forward  in  the  committee,  to 
alter,  in  article  2,  the  hours  prescribed  as  coming  within  the  night 
period.  The  Bern  convention  lays  down  that  the  night  period  of 
11  hours  must  in  any  case  comprise  the  period  between  10  o’clock 
in  the  evening  and  5  o’clock  in  the  morning.  The  proposal  of  the 
representative  of  the  Italian  Government  was  to  make  this  period 
extend  from  10  o’clock  in  the  evening  until  6  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

The  proposal  was  discussed  at  considerable  length,  and  when  the 
majority  decided  to  vote  against  it,  it  was  on  the  ground  not  of  any 
disapproval  of  the  principle  but  for  reasons  of  convenience  and 
necessity,  especially  at  the  present  time  when  the  disorganization 
of  war  was  still  prevalent  in  industry,  and  it  was  held  that  to  adopt 
this  change  might  make  reorganization  much  more  difficult. 

It  was  also  urged  that  it  would  be  almost  impossible  where  the 
shift  system,  a  system  of  two  day  shifts,  holds  the  field  to  provide, 
if  these  hours  were  adopted,  for  the  very  necessary  rest  and  break  for 
a  meal  during  the  eight-hour  shift.  In  this  connection  I  desire  to 
direct  the  attention  of  the  conference  to  the  minority  report,  signed 
by  Madame  Casartelli,  which  appears  in  the  report  of  to-day’s  date, 
and  which  sets  forth  the  reasons  for  the  proposition  and  in  addition 
requests  that  a  recommendation  be  forwarded  to  the  International 
Labor  Office  for  study  in  order  that  it  may  be  considered  at  the  next 
conference. 

To  sum  up:  The  committee  has  placed  before  the  conference 
changes,  which  it  thinks  advisable  and  are,  indeed,  demanded  by 
industrial  conditions,  in  the  existing  convention  of  Bern.  These 
changes,  as  you  will  have  noticed,  are  not  numerous.  They  leave 
the  main  lines  of  the  Bern  convention  untouched.  All  that  we  pro¬ 
pose  to  do  by  means  of  them  is  simply  to  prolong  those  lines  and  to 
attain  better  and  more  complete  methods  of  carrying  out  the  objects 
for  which  the  Bern  convention  was  framed. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


103 


The  committee,  therefore,  ventures  to  recommend  very  earnestly 
to  the  conference  this  report,  and  if  the  report  with  its  draft  amend¬ 
ments  is  accepted,  then  to  send  those  amendments  to  the  drafting 
committee  with  a  request  that  they  draw  up  a  new  convention  on  the 
lines  of  the  convention  of  Bern,  embodying  the  amendments  and 
at  the  same  time  adding  the  formal  paragraphs  on  procedure  and 
ratification  which  are  now  necessary.  We  trust,  as  a  committee, 
that  the  conference  will  adopt  our  report  and  will  make  the  necessary 
reference  to  the  drafting  committee. 

The  Bern  convention  represents  the  first  step  in  international 
labor  legislation.  It  was  a  valuable  step.  It  was  a  step  which  has 
carried  us  some  way  along  the  road  of  the  better  protection  of  our 
working  womanhood. 

It  is  for  this  conference  to  go  a  step  further  to  complete  the  work 
of  those  pioneers  of  1906  and,  in  its  much  greater  strength,  in  its  far 
more  representative  character  than  any  conference  of  those  days,  to 
carry  on  the  effort  to  come  closer  to  the  goal. 

I  beg  to  move  the  adoption  of  the  report.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Baldesi,  the  Italian  workers’  delegate, 
has  been  designated  to  open  the  debate  on  Miss  Constance  Smith’s 
report.  He  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  BALDESI.  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  The  motion  which 
is  presented  here  came  only  after  discussion  that  took  place  in  the 
commission  on  employment  of  women,  raised  by  a  woman  who  has 
put  her  intelligence  at  the  disposal  of  the  workers’  cause,  Madame 
Laura  Casartelli,  who  is  adviser  to  the  Italian  Government 
delegates. 

What  I  wish  to  call  to  the  attention  of  this  conference  is  of  great 
importance.  It  concerns  the  work  of  women  and  the  work  by 
shifts  in  the  establishments  in  which  women  work.  I  must  call 
to  your  attention  that  since  the  war  the  world  of  workers  has  opened 
its  doors  to  the  employment  of  women  wider  than  ever.  I  must 
also  note  that  the  system  of  working  by  shift  has  become  a  tendency 
in  the  modern  world,  and  is  a  natural  one  also. 

I  also  wish  to  call  attention  here  to  an  article  which  I  read  that  was 
written  during  the  war  by  an  Englishman,  Lord  Leverhulme,  in 
which  he  said  that  this  tendency  was  encouraged  by  the  fact  that 
capital  employed  in  establishments  where  machinery  was  in  use 
was  three  times  more  productive  where  the  shift  system  was  in  use, 
and  therefore  that  this  amply  compensated  the  greater  expenses 
caused  by  the  reduced  hours. 

Therefore,  if  the  tendency  of  the  industrial  world  is  to  adopt  the 
shift  system,  we  must  occupy  ourselves  with  the  condition  of  women 
employed  under  it.  The  Italian  Federation  of  Labor,  which  I  repre¬ 
sent,  has  already  discussed  the  problem  with  Italian  employers, 
and  it  has  come  to  an  agreement  in  the  cotton  and  textile  industries, 
in  which  the  system  of  work  by  shift  is  carried  on.  This  is  the 
text  of  the  agreement: 

It  is  agreed  that  work  in  two  shifts  in  one  establishment  shall  last  seven  and  a 
half  hours  for  each  shift,  in  which  shall  be  comprised  one-half  hour  for  rest,  which 
shall  take  place,  if  possible,  outside  the  place  where  the  work  is  carried  on,  and  in  all 
cases  with  the  machinery  stopped. 

Is  it  possible  that  this  conference  will  approve  modifications  of 
the  Bern  convention  without  bringing  any  benefit  to  women  as 
far  as  night  work  is  concerned?  All  establishments  are  not  near 
the  place  where  the  workers  live,  and  it  is  also  not  possible  for 
them  to  move  their  dwellings  close  to  the  factories,  especially  in  these 
times  of  great  scarcity  of  dwellings  all  over  the  world.  Considerable 
time  is  lost  in  going  to  and  from  the  establishments,  and  this  consti¬ 
tutes  overtime  and  causes  extra  fatigue  during  the  hours  of  the 
night.  I  know  that  there  will  be  opposition  from  the  same  people 
who  always  oppose  any  limitations  upon  industry  and  who  pro¬ 
pose  to  wait  for  a  change  in  conditions.  We  can  not  waste  our  time 
like  those  people  who  are  studying  the  problem  as  to  whether  the 
egg  was  born  before  the  hen.  We  have  got  to  conclude  that  night 
work  of  women  is  very  dangerous  to  their  health,  and  since  industry 
is  amply  compensated  by  the  greater  production  of  work  in  the 
shift  system,  we  can  also  decide  that  the  hours  of  the  night  from 


10  to  6  in  the  morning  are  not  fit  for  women  to  work  in  and  that  the 
half  hour  rest  ought  to  be  taken  from  the  eight  hours  of  work.  I 
ask  this  to  avoid  difficulties,  although  in  Italy  we  have,  as  I  said 
before,  the  system  of  taking  the  half  hour  rest  out  of  seven  and  a 
half  hours  of  work.  We  do  not  want  to  lose  the  chance  of  making 
this  modification  in  the  Bern  convention,  placing  women  under 
better  physiological  conditions  and  also  in  better  moral  conditions,  so 
that  not  only  will  she  be  a  good  worker  but  also  a  good  mother. 
But  if  we  place  the  work  of  women  on  the  same  level  as  that  of 
men  employed  eight  hours  a  day,  we  shall  render  only  ill  service 
to  woman’s  cause. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Castberg,  first  delegate  from  Norway, 
has  the  floor. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  I  shall  not  go  into  details  as  a  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  committee.  I  haven’t  had  the  opportunity  to  discuss 
all  sides  of  the  question.  On  behalf  of  the  two  Government  dele¬ 
gates  I  only  wish  to  say  that  we  are  both  in  favor  of  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  on  the  prohibition  of  night  work  for  women  as  amended 
by  the  committee,  and  that  we  will  give  our  votes  accordingly. 
Only  upon  one  point  should  I  wish  an  alteration,  and  that  is  the  same 
point  that  is  now  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Baldesi.  That  is  as  to  article  2 
in  the  Bern  convention,  where  the  night  is  defined  as  the  time 
between  10  in  the  evening  and  5  in  the  morning.  Under  the  Nor¬ 
wegian  law  it  is  from  9  to  6,  and  I  should  prefer  that  at  least  the 
time  5  o’clock  be  changed  to  6  o’clock. 

As  there  are  some  points  which  our  woman  adviser,  the  factory 
inspector,  Mrs.  Kjelsberg,  wishes  to  make,  I  respectfully  request 
the  president  to  permit  Mrs.  Kjelsberg  to  say  a  few  words. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Castberg  having  asked  for  the  floor  for 
Mrs.  Kjelsberg,  I  have  consulted  article  389  of  the  treaty,  which 
says: 

Advisers  shall  not  speak  except  on  a  request  made  by  the  delegate  whom  they 
accompany  and  by  the  special  authorization  of  the  president  of  the  conference,  and 
may  not  vote. 

Inasmuch  as  the  chairman  has  the  authority  to  give  the  floor  to 
an  adviser  on  the  request  of  a  delegate,  and  as  I  have  before  me  a 
written  request  from  the  Norwegian  delegate,  I  give  Mrs.  Kjelsberg 
the  floor. 

Mrs.  KJELSBERG  (Norway).  Mr.  President  and  delegates,  in 
N orway  we  got  our  first  factory-inspection  law  in  1892.  It  was  revised 
in  1909  and  in  1915.  We  have  never  had  any  special  protective 
laws  for  woman  workers  except  in  very  special  cases.  Thus  it  is 
forbidden  for  women  to  work  in  mines,  to  tend  especially  dangerous 
machines;  and  they  are  not  allowed  to  work  in  any  of  those 
processes  which  are  covered  by  law  for  six  weeks  after  childbirth. 
In  Norway  all  work,  for  women  as  well  as  for  men,  is  prohibited 
between  9  p.  m.  and  6  a.  m.,  except  in  the  following  cases: 

1.  In  undertakings  where  the  nature  of  the  work  requires  continuity,  as  for 
example,  gas  and  power  houses,  foundries,  etc. 

2.  Overtime  work;  this  work  is,  however,  limited  by  law  as  regards  the  number 
of  hours  in  which  work  may  be  performed. 

3.  Watch  and  necessary  preparatory  work. 

4.  In  dairies  it  is  permitted  for  persons  above  16  years  of  age  to  receive  and  to 
forward  milk  but  not  to  separate  same. 

5.  Upon  permission  from  the  Government,  as,  for  instance,  under  pressure  of 
work,  where  it  is  of  special  public  interest  to  have  an  order  completed. 

6.  By  special  permission  in  each  case,  in  seasonal  work,  in  order  to  prevent  decay 
of  raw  material;  for  instance,  canning  factories. 

Without  special  laws  we  have  on  the  whole  escaped  women’s 
work  at  night. 

I  am  against  special  protective  laws  for  women  except  for  preg¬ 
nant  women  and  women  nursing  children  under  one  year  of  age, 
because  I  believe  that  we  are  furthering  the  cause  of  good  labor 
laws  most  by  working  toward  the  prohibition  of  all  absolutely  un¬ 
necessary  night  work. 

It  is  hard  to  see  old,  worn-out  men  and  young  boys  in  the  most 
critical  period  of  development  work  during  the  night.  Many 
accidents  take  place  in  the  middle  of  the  night  when  the  workers 
are  most  tired. 


104 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  night  is  meant  for  sleeping,  and  therefore  all  night  work 
which  is  carried  on  for  capitalistic  interests  should  be  prohibited, 
and  likewise  all  work  which  takes  place  in  order  to  satisfy  an  exact¬ 
ing  and  unreflecting  public.  Thus  we  have  prohibition  against 
work  during  the  night  in  bakeries,  for  men  as  well  as  for  women. 
A  wave  of  protest  arose  all  over  the  country,  especially  from  well- 
to-do  housewives,  because  they  were  thus  prevented  from  getting 
hot  rolls  in  the  morning.  No  attention  was  paid  to  this,  however. 
We  got  the  law  and  it  works  splendidly.  The  royal  commission 
which  is  now  revising  our  factory  inspection  law,  and  of  which 
I  am  a  member,  now  intends  to  take  up  the  fight  for  prohibition  of 
night  work  in  newspaper  printing  offices.  Then  it  will  be  for  men 
to  lament  the  loss  of  the  morning  papers,  but  I  hope  that  we  shall 
succeed  also  here. 

In  this  way  I  shall  work  for  the  gradual  elimination  of  night  work 
as  regards  men  as  well  as  women.  I  feel  convinced  that  if  in  those 
countries  where  the  question  of  women’s  night  work  is  one  of  great 
importance  because  of  the  fact  that  it  is  so  widely  in  use,  if  in  those 
countries,  I  say,  the  fight  is  not  simultaneously  and  forcefully  taken 
up  against  work  at  night  in  general,  the  Bern  convention  of  1906 
with  regard  to  women’s  work  at  night  will  only  be  a  hindrance  to 
further  progress,  as  it  will  be  said  that  now  we  have  protected  the 
women  and  therefore  the  men  may  work  hard,  they  are  strong 
enough  to  stand  it. 

I  hope  that  the  honored  president  and  the  delegates  have  under¬ 
stood  that  I  have  been,  and  always  shall  be,  in  the  forefront  whenever 
there  is  a  question  of  furthering  strict  laws  of  protection  for  the  work¬ 
ers  of  both  sexes,  and  that  I  have  the  fullest  sympathy  for  and  appre¬ 
ciation  of  those  men  and  women  who  work  for  the  same  cause  as  I 
do,  even  if  they  do  so  from  other  motives.  We  are  all  trying  to 
reach  the  same  goal,  which  is  the  best  possible  condition  of  labor  for 
the  working  classes,  even  if  we  go  at  our  work  in  different  ways. 
[Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi  (Argentina)  has  the 
floor. 

Dr.  ANASTASI  (Argentina — remarks  in  Spanish):  The  Argentine 
delegation  will  vote  in  favor  of  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment,  and  to 
the  arguments  offered  would  add  only  one:  Argentine  legislation, 
since  1907,  prohibits  the  employment  of  women  from  9  p.  m.  to 
6  a.  m.,  and  such  long  practice  has  only  proved  the  advantages  of 
such  an  interesting  innovation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  fifth  speaker,  Mr.  Gudrin,  has  the  floor. 
He  is  to  discuss  an  amendment  to  the  text  of  the  report  of  the  com¬ 
mission  on  the  employment  of  women. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  commission 
proposes  the  following  amendment: 

In  industries  where  work  will  have  to  be  arranged  in  two  shifts,  owing  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  day,  the  employment  of  women  shail  be  authorized 
between  4  a.  m.  and  10  p.  m.  or  between  5  a.  m.  and  11  p.  m.,  providing  that  the 
work  of  each  shift  be  divided  by  one  hour  of  rest,  i.  e.,  for  each  shift,  four  hours  of 
work,  one  hour  of  rest,  four  hours  of  work. 

Here  the  employers  and  workers  seeming  to  be  in  accord,  it  was 
thought  possible  to  substitute  for  this  hour  of  rest  a  half  hour  only, 
if  everybody  agreed.  This  amendment,  however,  is  not  concerned 
with  modifying  the  regulation  prohibiting  the  night  work  of  women. 
Its  object  is  to  take  into  consideration  the  particular  circumstances 
resulting  from  immediate  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  law.  A 
variety  of  industries,  gentlemen,  will  be  able  to  cope  with  this  new 
system  only  by  employing  two  shifts  where  one  was  formerly  em 
ployed,  and  the  question  with  which  we  are  now  concerned  is  the 
organization  and  operation  of  these  two  shifts. 

The  industries  under  consideration — I  shall  mention  only  the 
principal  ones — are  the  textile  industries,  small  electric  appliance 
plants,  certain  branches  of  the  metal  trade  making  fine  machine 
parts  and  tools,  and  canning  industries. 

I  must  call  your  attention,  gentlemen,  to  the  fact  that,  in  France 
at  least,  the  textile  industries  employ  more  workers  than  any  others, 
even  more  than  all  the  metal-working  industries.  Hence  it  is  a 


matter  which  concerns  a  considerable  number  of  peopl ».  In  these 
industries,  moreover,  female  labor  is  extensively  employed.  The 
fact  must  not  be  gainsaid  that  strict  enforcement  of  the  Bern  con¬ 
vention  would  certainly  result  in  ruining  the  majority  of  these 
industries. 

Of  course,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  in  order  to  have  two  shifts  it 
must  be  admitted  that  each  shift  is  not  going  to  be  asked  to  work 
eight  consecutive  hours.  Nobody  could  adapt  himself  to  such  a 
system  as  that.  An  hour  of  rest  must  be  given,  or  in  case  of  emer¬ 
gency,  only  half  an  hour. 

I  repeat,  if  employers  and  workers  agree  to  reduce  this  hour  of 
rest  to  half  an  hour,  then  each  period  of  eight  hours — the  working 
period  of  each  shift — must  be  divided  into  two  periods  of  four  hours 
each,  with  a  rest  between.  Now,  work  the  matter  out.  You  will 
see  that  such  a  calculation  leads  us  to  the  following  conclusion: 
Work  must  either  be  between  4  a.  m.  and  10  p.  m.,  since  we  have 
4  and  4,  8  and  1,  9,  or  between  5  a.  m.  and  11  p.  m.,  if  one  hour  of 
rest  is  given,  or  10.30  if  there  is  only  half  an  hour  of  rest. 

Inasmuch,  gentlemen,  as  the  choice  between  these  two  systems 
depends  solely  on  local  conditions  it  is  expedient  to  allow  those  con¬ 
cerned  to  come  to  an  agreement  on  the  matter  among  themselves. 
It  is  for  that  reason  that  we  fixed  the  choice  between  4  a.  m.  and 
10  p.  m.,  or  5  a.  m.  and  11  p.  m.,  or  10.30  p.  m. 

It  should  be  distinctly  understood,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that 
the  special  privilege  requested  in  this  instance  should  only  be 
granted  on  the  following  conditions:  First,  enforcement  of  the  eight- 
hour  day;  second,  arrangement  of  work  in  two  successive  shifts;  and 
third,  an  hour  or  a  half  hour  rest  for  the  workers  of  each  shift, 
both  men  and  women,  as  explained  above. 

Allow  me  to  state  in  support  of  this  amendment  that  the  commis¬ 
sion  on  child  labor  adopted  an  equivalent  amendment.  It  would 
surely  be  very  singular  if  what  was  considered  acceptable  in  the 
case  of  children  should  be  regarded  as  impossible  for  women  who, 
being  older,  have  greater  powers  of  resistance. 

I  shall  limit  my  explanations,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  to  these 
remarks.  It  is  a  question  of  practical  opportunity  which  issues  from 
this  consideration,  namely,  that  the  most  determined  partisans  of 
the  eight-hour  law  should  be  concerned  to  make  it  feasible,  accep¬ 
table,  and  possible,  by  accommodating  it  to  the  exigencies  of 
production.  You  are  aware  of  my  opinion  on  this  subject.  We  must 
not  expose  ourselves  to  too  great  a  decrease  in  production;  it  is  de¬ 
creasing,  and  will  continue  to  decrease.  Do  not  lose  sight  of  that, 
ladies  and  gentlemen.  The  following  notice  should  be  posted  in 
large  letters:  “As  a  result  of  the  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour 
system,  production  decreases  in  proportion  to  the  decrease  in  the 
number  of  working  hours.”  Therefore,  wherever  we  can  to  any  de¬ 
gree  prevent  this,  let  us  do  so  by  means  of  practicable  amendments. 

The  PRESIDENT.  At  the  request  of  the  English-speaking  dele¬ 
gates,  I  wish  to  ask  the  interpreters  to  make  as  complete  a  translation 
as  possible  of  the  speeches  made  in  French.  Some  of  the  English 
auditors  have  complained  that  the  translation  is  often  incomplete.  I 
would  urge,  therefore,  that  the  interpreters  kindly  follow  the 
thought  of  the  French  speakers  as  closely  as  possible  and  render 
it  in  full  detail. 

Mr.  Fraipont,  Belgium,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  FRAIPONT  (Belgium).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  shall  add 
only  a  few  words  to  what  Mr.  Guerin  has  just  said  in  support  of  the 
amendment.  I  should  like  to  convince  you  that  there  is  nothing 
reactionary  about  this  amendment;  on  the  contrary,  its  essential 
purpose  is  to  permit  the  granting  of  an  hour’s  rest  morning  and 
evening  to  each  working  shift.  In  reality,  according  to  the  word¬ 
ing  of  article  2,  it  is  possible  to  grant  only  a  half  hour’s  rest  during 
the  eight  hours  of  work,  either  in  the  morning  or  in  the  afternoon, 
without  reducing  the  period  of  actual  work.  Now,  it  frequently 
happens  that  in  the  villages  in  the  vicinity  of  the  factories  the  women 
workers  who  have  only  half  an  hour’s  rest  must  take  their  meals  in 
the  factory  and  remain  in  the  buildings.  On  the  other  hand,  by 
granting  an  hour’s  rest  to  each  eight-hour  shift,  as  a  general  thing 
the  women  who  do  not  live  too  far  away  can  be  permitted  to  go 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


105 


home  for  their  meals.  That  is  the  main  object  of  the  amendment 
which  is  before  you.  Thus  in  reality  the  point  is  to  permit  the  in¬ 
sertion  of  a  rest  of  one  hour  without  reducing  the  eight  hours  of 
actual  work,  and  thereby  to  organize  the  two  eight-hour  shifts  in 
a  rational  and  humanitarian  way. 

We  must  not  make  a  mistake  about  the  figures  indicated.  The 
actual  rest  of  women  who  work  under  those  conditions  will  really 
be,  not  11  hours,  not  12  hours,  not  13  hours,  but  15  hours  of  actual 
rest.  We  must  not  misunderstand  this.  The  provisions  of  the 
Bern  convention  which  fixed  the  limits  for  night  work  were  made 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  one  day  shift.  For  this  day  shift,  if  it 
were  the  only  one,  I  should  be  inclined  to  increase  the  period  of 
rest  granted  during  the  night.  Instead  of  making  it  8  hours,  it 
could  even  be  raised  to  12  or  13  hours  without  inconvenience.  But 
it  is  a  question  here  of  organizing  two  shifts  of  8  hours  in  the  so-called 
day  period,  and  for  that  it  is  first  necessary  to  allow  the  two  suc¬ 
cessive  shifts  two  rests  of  an  hour  each.  It  will  be  necessary  to 
increase  what  we  consider  the  day  period  either  by  adding  to  the 
morning  hours  or  by  adding  an  hour  in  the  evening. 

Therefore  I  wish  to  emphasize  the  point  that  the  proposed  amend¬ 
ment,  instead  of  being  unfavorable  to  the  women  workers,  will  be 
more  favorable  to  them,  because  in  reality  they  will  have  an  hour’s 
inserted  rest  during  their  work,  which  will  allow  them  to  go  home 
for  their  meals,  and  because,  independently  of  this  rest  period,  they 
will  still  enjoy  15  hours’  rest  after  their  work  is  finished.  Women 
workers  who  begin  at  5  in  the  morning  Mull  stop  at  2  o’clock  in  the 
atternoon  after  having  had  an  hour’s  rest  and  from  2  in  the  after¬ 
noon  to  5  in  the  morning  they  can  rest.  Thus  you  see  that  this 
amendment  is  neither  dangerous  nor  reactionary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Before  recognizing  the  speakers  who  are  to 
follow,  four  in  number,  I  venture  to  express  the  hope  that  they  will 
be  as  brief  as  possible,  because  the  hour  is  growing  late,  and  it  is 
most  important  that  we  should  finish  the  present  discussion  before 
6  o’clock.  We  shall  have  to  take  two  or  three  votes,  and  it  will 
therefore  be  necessary  for  each  speaker  to  limit  himself.  This 
request  is  not  addressed  to  anyone  in  particular,  but  applies  to  all. 

Mr.  Posada,  of  Spain,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  POSADA  (Spain — remarks  in  Spanish).  The  delegation  of 
the  Spanish  Government,  in  view  of  the  reports  of  the  majority  and 
of  the  minority  of  the  commission  on  night  work  of  women  desires 
to  make  the  following  statement.  The  delegation  is  quite  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  commission  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  our  law  ratifying  the  Bern  convention  had  already 
made,  in  1912,  the  essential  modifications  contained  in  the  text 
which  is  submitted  to  us  for  discussion.  But  the  delegation  is  also 
in  agreement  with  that  part  of  the  report  of  the  minority  which 
deals  with  the  hours  of  rest  during  the  night,  which  are  compul¬ 
sory.  Our  law  provides  that  this  compulsory  rest  shall  be  8  hours 
as  a  minimum.  The  Spanish  delegation  finds,  therefore,  in  this  sit¬ 
uation  the  necessity  of  voting  for  some  method  of  harmonizing 
the  two  reports  before  us  for  examination.  This  solution  is  based 
upon  the  accomplished  fact  of  the  law  of  Spain  of  1912,  by  which 
the  women  workers  of  Spain  are  benefited. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mme.  Letellier,  of  the  French  delegation, 
is  recognized. 

Mrs.  LETELLIER  (France).  As  a  member  of  the  commission 
on  employment  of  women  and  as  a  member  of  the  majority,  I  desire 
to  say  that  the  questions  now  under  discussion  were  thoroughly 
discussed  by  the  commission,  and  it  was  after  having  heard  the 
arguments  of  the  other  side  which  are  now  being  repeated  here  that 
the  majority  expressed  itself. 

The  delimitation  of  the  night  with  reference  to  work  in  shifts 
was  studied;  and  on  this  point  Mr.  Baldesi  will  permit  me  to  reply 
to  him. 

If  I  have  understood  Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion,  the  result  would  be 
that  the  work  of  two  shifts  of  women  would  have  to  be  done  between 
the  hours  of  6  in  the  morning  and  10  in  the  evening,  instead  of  5  in 
the  morning  and  10  in  the  evening,  the  hours  fixed  by  the  Bern 


convention.  Under  the  Baldesi  motion,  there  would  be  a  period 
of  16  hours  instead  of  17  for  this  work.  The  question  arises  as  to 
how  Mr.  Baldesi  understands  the  distribution  of  these  working 
hours.  Shall  the  work  of  each  shift  be  interrupted  by  a  rest,  or 
shall  it  be  continuous? 

If  Mr.  Baldesi  presupposes  a  half  hour’s  rest  interrupting  the  day’s 
work,  that  means  that  the  duration  of  actual  work  would  be  seven 
hours  and  a  half.  If  it  were  not  proposed  by  a  person  like  Mr.  Bal¬ 
desi,  for  whose  character  I  have  great  respect,  I  should  be  tempted 
to  see  in  this  an  indirect  way  of  obtaining  the  seven  and  a  half  hour 
day  for  women.  I  do  not  think  that  the  commission  could  express 
itself  upon  that  question  when  the  eight-hour  day  is  at  this  moment 
under  discussion  before  a  special  commission.  Besides,  I  shall  not 
do  Mr.  Baldesi  the  injustice  of  believing  that  such  was  his  thought. 

If.  then,  Mr.  Baldesi  did  not  have  the  idea  of  reducing  the  actual 
work  to  seven  hours  and  a  half,  he  must  admit  the  possibility  of 
continuous  work  for  each  shift.  With  all  my  energy  I  protest 
against  this  possibility.  Rest  during  the  working  day  has  always 
been  called  for  by  women  workers;  even  if  they  did  not  call  for  it 
it  ought  to  be  granted  them  in  their  own  interest.  In  fact,  it  is  not 
possible  to  presuppose  any  continuous  labor  for  eight  hours  which 
would  not  induce  fatigue  and  exhaustion.  Technical  experts  who 
have  made  a  scientific  study  of  fatigue  in  its  relations  to  labor  con¬ 
clude  that  fatigue  appears  at  about  the  third  hour;  others  say  at 
the  fourth  hour  of  work;  at  the  same  time  there  is  a  dimin¬ 
ution  of  output.  The  results  therefore  of  such  a  method  are 
obvious. 

As  for  the  woman  who  works  by  the  job,  continuous  work  without 
any  rest  causes  not  only  fatigue  but  also  great  pecuniary  loss.  For 
the  others  the  loss  would  be  no  less,  since  it  would  affect  what  is 
perhaps  their  only  capital,  i.  e.,  their  health.  To  my  mind  the 
half  hour’s  rest  granted  by  the  Bern  convention  constitutes  a  min¬ 
imum,  and  that,  too,  a  necessary  minimum.  It  is  impossible,  when 
we  are  assembled  here  to  study  ways  to  prevent  night  work  for  women, 
that  is  to  say,  to  improve  their  working  conditions,  to  accept  the 
measure  proposed  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  a  measure  which  would  have  the 
opposite  result  and  would  entirely  prevent  us  from  attaining  the 
object  so  well  defined  by  Miss  Constance  Smith.  I  can  do  no  better 
than  to  repeat  the  closing  words  of  her  report: 

The  protection  of  the  health  of  women  workers,  and  through  them,  of  their  chil¬ 
dren,  and  also  that  of  the  general  population  in  every  country. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  J.  Sigfrid  Edstrom,  of  the  Swedish  dele¬ 
gation,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  Mr.  President,  ladies,  and  gentlemen, 
as  a  member  of  the  commission  I  wish  to  say  that  although  I  am  an 
employer  I  am  going  to  vote  with  the  majority  of  the  commission, 
and  I  wish  to  explain  to  you  why  I  have  come  to  that  conclusion. 

I  have  been  a  member  of  the  small  committee  appointed  within 
the  commission  to  study  this  question,  and  We  have  there  most  care¬ 
fully  gone  into  the  situation.  I  have  there  pointed  out  just  the 
things  that  Mr.  Guerin  and  Mme.  Letellier  brought  forward  here, 
and  I  do  not  wish  now  to  repeat  them.  It  was  found,  however,  that 
it  is  possible  with  the  limit  of  time  given  in  the  Bern  convention  to 
work  in  two  shifts. 

It  is  not  very  convenient  for  the  employers  and  it  is  not  very  con¬ 
venient  for  the  workers,  but  it  is  possible,  and  therefore  it  seems  to 
me,  and  it  seemed  to  the  small  committee  of  the  commission,  that  it 
would  be  best  to  stick  to  the  Bern  convention  as  regards  this. 

That  was  a  compromise  within  our  commission  and,  although  I,  as 
an  employer,  should  wish  to  vote  the  way  the  employers  have  moved 
here,  I  vote  with  the  majority  of  the  commission,  and  I  beg  strongly  to 
recommend  the  report  of  the  commission  for  the  attention  of  this 
conference. 

Mr.  President,  I  second  the  motion  of  Miss  Constance  Smith,  that 
the  commission’s  report  be  adopted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Miss  Hesselgren,  of  Sweden,  is  recognized. 

Miss  HESSELGREN  (Sweden).  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  on 
behalf  of  the  Swedish  Government  delegates.  In  Sweden  we 


106 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


have  abolished  night  work  since  1909,  and  we  have  found  that  it 
has  done  a  great  deal  of  good.  It  seems  a  very  reasonable  demand 
that  Mr.  Baldesi  has  made,  for  prolonging  the  night  rest  till  6  o’clock 
and  I  should  be  very  glad,  indeed,  if  we  do  that  without  placing  the 
women  in  a  rather  difficult  position.  There  is  no  doubt,  now  that 
the  eight-hour  day  is  going  to  be  introduced,  that  we  have  to  face  the 
fact  that  shift  work  will  be  done  in  many  more  trades  than  it  has  been 
used  before,  and  we  can  not  as  yet  see  to  what  extent  this  shift  work 
will  be  employed.  Now,  I  must  say  with  Mme.  Letellier  that  17 
hours  for  shift  work  is  the  very  least  that  you  can  introduce  in  order 
to  give  time  for  cleaning  the  rooms  between  the  shifts  or  to  give 
sufficient  rest  to  the  women  during  the  work. 

Of  course,  we  can  ask  what  Mr.  Baldesi  has  asked,  to  give  the 
rest  during  the  shift,  during  the  working  shift,  thereby  diminishing 
the  effective  working  time  to  seven  and  a  half  or  seven  hours;  but  I 
am  quite  sure,  knowing  what  a  long  time  it  has  taken  to  get  people  to 
admit  the  eight-hour  day,  that  it  will  be  quite  impossible  to  get 
people  to  admit  a  seven  hour  or  seven  and  a  half  hour  day.  Should 
this  shorter  day  of  seven  and  a  half  or  seven  hours  be  demanded  for 
the  women  only,  I  am  afraid  that  that  will  keep  them  out  of  several 
trades  they  have  hitherto  worked  in,  and  I  can’t  think  that  that 
would  be  a  good  plan. 

We  know  too  little  as  yet  of  the  effect  of  the  eight-hour  day  on 
shift  work,  and  therefore  I  think  it  would  be  much  better  to  wait 
till  the  next  conference  to  bring  forth  proposals  of  this  kind;  and 
for  that  reason  I  prefer  to  vote  on  the  commission’s  proposal. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  recognizes  Mr.  Kamada,  delegate 
from  Japan,  the  last  speaker  whose  name  is  entered. 

Mr.  KAMADA  (Japan).  I  beg  to  voice  my  opposition  to  the 
observation  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi  as  well  as  that  made  by  Mr.  Guerin. 
It  is  my  privilege  to  declare  that  Japan  will  adhere  to  the  Bern 
convention.  But  at  the  same  time,  realizing  the  great  effect  upon 
Japanese  industrial  conditions  which  will  take  place  by  the  limita¬ 
tion  of  working  hours  at  night,  and  reflecting  on  the  fact  that  the 
industry  which  is  mostly  affected  by  the  prohibition  of  night  work 
is  the  industry  supplying  the  necessities  of  life,  I  propose  that  we 
adopt  as  nearly  as  possible  the  original  text  of  the  Bern  convention, 
that  is,  10  to  5. 

Again,  according  to  Mr.  Guerin’s  proposition,  it  causes  an  earlier 
beginning  and  later  closing  of  work,  which  does  not  protect  women 
workers,  even  if  the  contrary  may  be  his  intention.  In  other  words, 
I  hope  that  the  original  recommendation  by  the  committee  may  be 
adopted  as  it  is. 

The  PRESIDEN  T.  Mr.  Ilg  is  recognized. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  take  it  that 
for  the  time  being  the  matter  before  the  conference  is  to  examine 
what  convention  we  desire  to  draft  concerning  night  work,  and 
after  that  concerning  work  in  shifts.  The  question  of  principle 
must  first  be  settled — if  we  are  agreed  on  the  principle  of  accepting 
work  in  shifts  for  women. 

As  far  as  I  am  concerned,  for  the  time  being  I  am  utterly  opposed 
to  having  the  system  of  two  shifts  for  women  also  introduced.  I 
have  no  desire  to  go  into  details,  because  I  consider  that  at  present 
the  question  can  not  be  discussed  here,  since  it  has  not  yet  been 
thoroughly  examined. 

I  believe  that  for  the  moment  the  conference  should  occupy 
itself  solely  with  night  work  for  women,  properly  speaking.  As 
regards  work  in  shifts,  this  is  a  question  the  principle  of  which  must 
first  be  examined  and  then  submitted  to  a  committee,  either  the 
one  which  has  already  taken  up  the  subject,  or  a  new  committee. 
It  seems  to  me  that  just  now  there  is  an  effort  to  take  the  conference 
by  surprise  in  regard  to  a  principle  of  very  wide  range.  I  do  not 
believe  that  this  is  a  matter  to  be  discussed  in  a  few  words  or  by 
the  insertion  of  a  few  amendments.  Work  in  shifts  is  a  most  im¬ 
portant  question,  and  I  am  sure  that  all  countries  in  which  organi¬ 
zations  of  workers  exist  will  be  opposed  to  it.  The  system  of  two 
shifts  for  men  is  already  presenting  great  difficulties,  and  for  women 
would  be  still  more  difficult,  for  it  entails  first  of  all  a  disorganiza¬ 


tion  of  the  family.  It  is  quite  possible  that  this  system  may  not 
work  at  all.  Therefore  I  propose  for  the  time  being  to  discuss  only 
night  work,  and  with  regard  to  the  second  question,  to  refer  it  to  a 
committee  to  study  the  principle  of  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  the  discussion  of  the  report  on 
employment  of  women  has  been  as  full  as  could  be  desired.  We 
shall  proceed  now,  with  your  consent,  to  vote  first  on  the  amend¬ 
ments,  and  then  on  the  complete  report  with  or  without  the  amend¬ 
ments,  according  to  what  shall  be  indicated  by  your  previous  vote 
as  to  their  inclusion  or  exclusion.  Therefore,  if  you  so  desire,  I 
shall  call  for  a  vote  upon  the  motion  offered  by  Mr.  Baldesi  concern¬ 
ing  night  work  of  women;  next  we  shall  take  a  vote  upon  the 
employers’  report  as  set  forth  by  Mr.  Guerin  and  Mr.  Fraipont, 
and  finally,  after  the  result  of  these  votes  is  ascertained,  the  con¬ 
ference  will  be  called  upon  to  voice  its  opinion  on  the  report  with 
or  without  these  amendments. 

Is  this  method  agreeable  to  the  conference? 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  am  not  in  harmony  with  this  method 
because  it  will  compel  me  to  vote  against  the  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi, 
which  I  do  not  wish  to  do.  I  should  like  the  two  questions  to 
be  separated,  and  the  appointmen  decided  upon  now  of  a  com¬ 
mittee  to  study  the  question  of  the  system  of  work  for  women 
in  shifts. . 

The  PRESIDENT.  Then  here  we  have  a  third  motion,  the  one 
offered  by  Mr.  Ilg. 

Mr.  Ilg’s  motion  amounts  to  this:  That  the  whole  question  should 
be  referred  to  a  committee,  that  is  to  say,  all  the  work  which  has 
been  done  would  have  to  be  done  over  again.  Do  I  understand 
that  such  is  the  motion  of  Mr.  Ilg?  I  beg  Mr.  Ilg  to  consider  the 
seriousness  of  his  motion,  and  for  my  part  I  should  ask  him  to  be 
kind  enough  to  withdraw  it. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  1  am  extremely  sorry,  but  I  can  not 
withdraw  my  motion,  inasmuch  as  I  can  not  accept  any  change  in 
the  draft  convention  which  would  include  night  work  of  women 
and  at  the  same  time  a  system  of  work  in  shifts,  which  are  two 
entirely  separate  things.  As  far  as  the  system  of  working  in  shifts 
is  concerned,  this  question  in  my  opinion  should  first  be  studied 
further. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Ilg’s  proposal  seems  to  be  a  regular 
motion.  Now,  as  the  motion  was  not  presented  the  day  before,  it 
can  not  be  brought  up  for  discussion  to-day. 

If  Mr.  Ilg  does  not  concur  in  Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion  or  in  other 
motions  which  have  been  presented,  he  has  only  to  vote  against 
them. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  If  the  motion  pre¬ 
sented  by  Mr.  Ilg,  of  Switzerland,  had  been  accepted  I  would 
have  agreed  to  accept  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  principle; 
otherwise  I  insist  upon  my  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  In  the  present  state  of  affairs,  it  seems  to 
me  that  if  these  gentlemen  desire  to  make  a  recommendation  upon 
work  in  shifts  to  the  next  conference,  they  can  do  this  in  the  way 
indicated  in  the  standing  orders:  but  the  duty  of  the  president  is 
for  the  time  being  to  take  a  vote  upon  the  amendments  which  are 
in  order. 

Therefore  I  call  for  a  vote  on  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment,  the  text 
of  which  has  been  read  or  the  reading  of  which  has  been  heard  by 
everybody. 

Those  who  are  in  favor  of  Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion,  please  raise  their 
right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  delegates  who  are  opposed  to  the  Baldesi  motion  please 
raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted]. 

Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion  is  rejected.  Twenty-seven  voted  in  favor, 
26  against. 

We  shall  now  take  a  vote  on  the  amendment  to  the  text  of  the 
report  of  the  commission  on  employment  of  women  in  night  work 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


107 


which  was  presented  by  the  employers’  group  and  explained  by 
Messrs.  Guerin  and  Fraipont. 

Those  delegates  who  are  in  favor  of  this  amendment,  please  raise 
their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted]. 

Those  delegates  who  are  opposed  to  the  amendment,  please  raise 
their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted]. 

The  amendment  is  rejected  by  58  votes  to  16. 

Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  we  shall  proceed  to  take  a  vote  on  the 
entire  report. 

Those  in  favor,  please  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  the  report  please  raise  their 
right  hands. 

The  report  is  unanimously  adopted. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  the  program  of  the  conference  would  bring 
us  to  the  discussion  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  standing 
orders,  but  1  think  that  the  lateness  of  the  hour  and  the  approach 
of  6  o’clock,  the  usual  limit  for  our  daily  sessions,  invite  us  to  adjourn. 
If  you  agree,  we  shall  meet  to-morrow  at  half-past  2. 

[The  meeting  was  adjourned  to  Friday,  November  21,  at  2.30 
o’clock  p.  m.] 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Alejandro  Unsain  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Felipe  Espil). 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Michel  Levie). 

Mr.  A.  Delmer  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ernest  Mahaim). 

Mr.  M.  Fraipont  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Jules  earlier). 

Mr  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Mr.  Loring  C.  Christie  (substitute 
for  Hon.  Newton  W.  R-well.) 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons). 

Mr.  David  Rees  (substitute  for 
Mr.  P.  M.  Draper). 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 


Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Loveira  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Carlos  Armen terosy  Cardenas). 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  Ferdinand  Statsny  (substitute 
for  Mr.  R.  Tayerle). 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamomen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 


France: 

Mrs.  Letellier  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Arthur  Fontaine). 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Dumoulin  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ldon  Jouhaux). 

Great  Britain: 

Miss  Constance  Smith  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne, 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart- Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzdne. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Haiti: 

Mr.  Charles  Moravia. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Josbl. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  CastigUone  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabnni). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baidesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikiehi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Kohei  Sato  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Uhei  Masumoto). 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Miss  H.  Kuyper  (substitute  for  Mr. 

G.  J.  van  Thienen). 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  P.  Serrarens  (substitute  for  Mr. 
J.  Oudegeest). 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg 
Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 


Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jastrzebowski  (substitute  fo. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny). 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 

Miss  Hesselgren  (substitute  for  Sen¬ 
ator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch). 

Mr.  J.  S.  Edstrom  (substitute  for 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow). 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Dr.  H.  Wegmann  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Dietrich  Schindler). 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 


SIXTEENTH  SESSION— FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER  21,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.45  o’clock  p.  m.,  Baron  Mayor  dea 
Planches  (Italy)  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  the  meeting  is  called  to  order. 
According  to  the  program  of  the  conference  we  should  proceed  to-day 
to  examination  and  discussion  of  the  two  reports  of  the  committee  on 
standing  orders.  First,  however,  the  secretary  general  is  recognized 
in  order  to  make  an  announcement  to  the  assembly. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  If  the  two  items  on  the  agenda 
for  this  afternoon’s  meeting  are  disposed  of,  there  will  be  no  full 
session  of  the  conference  to-morrow  morning.  If  they  are  not  dis¬ 
posed  of,  the  conference  will  meet  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock. 
There  will  also  be  a  meeting  of  the  committee  of  selection  at  10 
o’clock  to-morrow  morning,  in  any  case. 

Mr.  COLLINET  (France1).  At  what  hour? 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  At  10  o’clock. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Then,  gentlemen,  we  will  begin  our  exami¬ 
nation  and  discussion  of  the  two  reports  of  the  committee  on  standing 
orders.  Mr.  Mahaim,  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  has  been 
directed  by  the  committee  to  present  to  the  conference  the  two 
reports  on  questions  submitted  to  it.  Mr.  Mahaim  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  Mr.  President,  ladies,  and  gentlemen, 
I  do  not  think  any  long  speech  is  necessary  in  order  to  lay  before  you 
the  work  of  our  committee.  It  was  a  thankless  task,  as  it  was  a 
question  of  determining  the  exact  rules  for  governing  our  assembly, 
and  we  had  difficulties  to  meet  of  a  special  nature.  These  difficul¬ 
ties  arose  particularly  from  the  different  parliamentary  customs 
existing  in  different  countries;  notably  from  the  differences  between 
the  Anglo-Saxon  countries  and  the  others. 

It  seemed  to  us  impossible  to  adopt  purely  and  simply  the  parlia¬ 
mentary  procedure  of  any  one  of  these  groups  of  countries.  Such 


108 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


action  would  involve  too  great  a  shock  to  the  customs  and  modes  of 
thought  of  the  other  group.  Consequently,  we  have  attempted  a 
compromise.  We  endeavored  to  frame  rules  and  regulations,  our 
standing  orders,  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  clash  too  much  with  the 
customs  of  either  group.  Hence  you  will  find  certain  provisions 
which  may  at  first  seem  rather  unusual,  provisions  in  which  we 
considered  it  our  duty  to  explain  our  reasons  for  their  adoption  as 
clearly  and  simply  as  possible. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  wish  to  observe,  as  I  said  at  the  beginning 
of  my  report,  it  was  not  necessary  to  rewrite  into  these  regulations, 
which  are  merely  standing  orders  involving  matters  of  internal 
procedure,  all  the  provisions  already  contained  in  Part  XIII  of  the 
peace  treaty.  I  hasten  to  make  this  explanation  in  order  to  prevent 
anyone  from  asking  “  Why  is  this  article,  which  is  contained  in  the 
peace  treaty,  not  reproduced  in  the  standing  orders?  ” 

In  the  next  place,  we  tried  to  take  account  of  the  practice  of  this 
assembly.  In  short,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  provisional  standing 
orders  which  have  been  submitted  to  you  have  been  in  actual  prac¬ 
tice  during  these  few  days — these  few  weeks,  we  may  say — and, 
except  for  a  few  details,  a  few  additions  that  we  felt  should  be 
made,  have  on  the  whole  worked  fairly  satisfactorily.  We  are 
keeping  the  general  outlines,  and  only  adding  whatever  seems 
necessary  for  the  greater  accuracy  of  the  provisions  we  adopted. 

Mr.  President,  with  your  consent,  I  shall  refrain  from  entering  into 
the  details  of  the  standing  orders,  and  simply  make  observations  on 
each  article  as  it  is  brought  up  for  discussion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  floor  is  open  for  discussion. 

Mr.  BARBOSA  (Portugal).  I  request  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barbosa  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BARBOSA  (Portugal).  Mr.  President,  as  I  understand  it,  you 
have  opened  the  floor  to  discussion  of  the  two  reports  of  the  committee 
on  standing  orders.  I  have  nothing  to  say  in  regard  to  the  first 
report,  but  in  regard  to  the  second  I  must  say  to  the  eminent  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  committee  that  they  have  been  mistaken  as  far  as  the 
application  of  the  orders  to  Portugal  is  concerned. 

The  second  report  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders  says  that 
Portugal - 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  delegate  from  Portugal  allow  me 
to  remark  that  discussion  of  the  first  report  is  in  order  first. 

Mr.  BARBOSA  (Portugal).  You  said  that  both  reports  were  open 
to  discussion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  two  reports  will  be  discussed  in  suc¬ 
cession. 

Mr.  BARBOSA  (Portugal.  Very  well,  I  will  wait,  but  I  request 
the  floor  for  the  second  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  some  one  take  the  floor  on  the  first 
report  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders? 

Dr.  MIALL  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  I  would  like  to  raise 
the  same  point  of  order  which  Mr.  Kershaw  raised  yesterday  after¬ 
noon.  It  is  desirable  that  this  report  shall  be  earned  by  a  valid 
majority,  and  if  it  is  necessary  to  have  half  the  votes  of  the  members 
of  the  conference  perhaps  it  might  be  worth  while  to  continue  the 
discussion  for  a  few  minutes  in  order  to  get  the  necessary  quorum 
present  here. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  chairman  has  no  objections  to  the  dis¬ 
cussion  being  continued,  provided  some  of  the  delegates  take  the 
floor;  but  thus  far  no  one  has  asked  the  floor  on  the  first  report.  Do 
you  then,  gentlemen,  wish  to  discuss  both  reports  together  as  long 
as  no  one  has  requested  the  floor  for  the  first,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
delegate  from  Portugal  has  requested  the  floor  for  the  second? 

If  no  one  requests  the  floor  for  the  first  report,  I  give  the  floor  to 
the  delegate  from  Portugal  on  the  second. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  submit  that  I  think  there  is  a  suf¬ 
ficient  number  in  attendance  now  for  us  to  adopt  the  first  part 
of  the  report  and  then  deal  with  the  second  part.  I  would  like  to 
ask  Dr.  Mahaim  if  he  has  proposed  the  adoption  of  the  first  part 
of  the  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A  separate  vote  is  asked  for  the  first  and 
second  report.  This  separate  vote  would  have  been  taken  even  if 


the  second  report  had  been  discussed  immediately  following  the 
first,  and  without  a  vote  intervening.  As  we  seem  to  have  a  quorum 
we  can  vote.  If  no  one  requests  the  floor  for  discussion  of  the  first 
report,  we  can  put  it  to  a  vote.  Does  anyone  ask  the  floor  on  the 
first  report?  As  no  one  requests  the  floor  on  the  first  report,  I  shall 
put  the  report  to  a  vote. 

Just  a  minute,  gentlemen,  in  order  to  have  the  delegates  sum¬ 
moned  who  may  be  in  the  corridors  near  the  conference  room,  or  in 
committee  rooms. 

Gentlemen,  I  beg  the  delegates  in  favor  of  the  first  report  of  the 
committee  on  standing  orders  to  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  are  counted  by  the  teller.] 

I  now  beg  all  the  delegates  opposed  to  the  first  report  to  raise 
their  right  hands. 

As  no  one  is  opposed  to  the  first  report  of  the  committee  on  stand¬ 
ing  orders,  it  is  adopted  unanimously. 

I  open  the  floor  to  discussion  of  the  second  report  of  the  committee 
on  standing  orders,  and  I  have  the  honor  of  recognizing  the  delegate 
from  Portugal,  Mr.  Barbosa. 

Mr.  BARBOSA  (Portugal).  Mr.  President,  the  second  repo:-, 
of  the  committee  on  standing  orders  states  which  countries  were 
appointed  to  take  part  in  the  conference  at  Washington,  and  among 
those  countries  I  note  the  one  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent, 
Portugal. 

Portugal,  Mr.  President,  appointed  employers’  and  workers’ 
delegates,  and  if,  by  charce,  the  Portuguese  Government  had  not 
appointed  its  two  delegates,  I  should  not  be  at  this  confere'  ce, 
for  it  was  my  understanding  that  the  promotion  of  social  peice  was 
our  object  in  coming  to  Washington,  and  I  felt  that  this  would  be 
impossible  to  accomplish  if  the  disparity  in  representative  strength 
of  the  workers  and  employers  were  too  considerable. 

My  country  did  indeed  appoint  but  a  single  Government  delegate. 
Two  were  named  at  first,  but  one  of  them  was  unable  to  come  and 
no  substitute  provided  inasmuch  as  we  were  of  the  firm  opinion  that 
Government  representation  should  not  outweigh  that  of  the  other 
groups.  We  Portuguese  feel  quite  free  to  discuss  social  questions 
be c 'use  we  have  outstripped  almost  all  countries  by  adopting 
see  al  measures  considerably  more  advanced  than  those  proposed 
at  this  con  fere  1  ce. 

Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  eminent  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders  to  this  fact,  because  I 
believe  it  would  perhaps  be  questionable — that  it  is  questionable — 
whether  we  should  give  voting  privileges  to  countries  which  do  not 
have  both  workers’  and  employers’  representatives. 

I  believe  that  the  members  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders 
can  satisfy  themselves  that  the  delegates  are  here.  There  is  Mr 
de  I,;  cerda,  the  employers’  representative,  and  Mr.  Franco,  the 
representative  of  the  workers’  organizations  in  my  country.  They 
did  not  arrive  in  time  to  be  present  at  the  opening  of  the  c  mfere:  ce, 
but  that  was  neither  their  fault  nor  that  of  the  Portuguese  Govern¬ 
ment.  They  were  at  Halifax,  where  the  Royal  George  remained 
five  or  six  days.  Other  delegates  were  in  the  same  situation — they 
arrived  on  the  Royal  George  and  were  not  mentioned  in  the  report 
of  the  committee.  I  will  refrain,  Mr.  President,  from  mentioning 
them,  but  I  must  also  state  that  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings 
on  verification  before  the  committee,  through  the  fault  of  a  few 
careless  members — forgive  the  word — the  Portuguese  Government 
delegate  was  not  even  asked  whether  other  delegates  were  or  were 
not  appointed.  Yet  both  the  workers’  and  employers’  delegates 
have  been  making  inquiries  of  me  in  the  matter  sii.ee  the  first  day. 

I  am  anxious  to  make  these  statements,  Mr.  President,  bee  uise  I 
believe  the  names  of  the  Portuguese  delegates  are  to  be  found  in 
the  provisional  record. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Mahaim,  of  the  Belgian  delegation,  and 
reporter  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders  requests  the  floor. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  Mr.  President,  gentlemen,  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  making  my  excuses  to  the  delegate  from  Portugal, 
inasmuch  as  I  did  everything  in  my  power  to  learn  the  exact  situa- 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


109 


tion  of  the  various  countries.  A  letter  was  sent  to  the  different 
Government  representatives  on  our  list,  including  the  delegate  from 
Portugal.  If  he  did  not  receive  the  letter,  I  am  extremely  sorry 
and  express  my  regrets.  I  request  therefore  that  Portugal  be  struck 
off  the  list  of  countries  sending  only  Government  representatives. 

With  regard  to  the  task  of  the  committee,  it  is  my  duty  to  say 
to  you  that  although  we  sent  letters  in  ample  time,  and  designated 
the  time  at  which  we  would  be  ready  to  hear  the  delegates  from  all 
these  Governments,  they  did  not  appear.  This  is  how  I  came  to 
be  told  that  your  delegates  had  been  appointed  but  had  not  come,  and 
why  they  found  themselves  in  the  same  situation  with  others. 

I  shall  strike  Portugal  from  my  report  when  it  appears  in  its  final 
form. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  Portugal  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  BARBOSA  (Portugal).  I  appreciate  very  much  remarks 
that  have  been  made  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  stand¬ 
ing  orders. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Explanations  having  been  made  and  ac¬ 
cepted  with  the  same  good  grace,  the  episode  is  closed,  and  I  give 
the  floor  to  any  other  delegates  who  may  wish  to  discuss  the  second 
report. 

As  no  one  wishes  the  floor  on  the  second  report  of  the  committee 
on  standing  orders,  we  shall  proceed,  with  your  approval,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  to  a  vote  on  this  same  report. 

Mr.  Perez,  of  Cuba,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  PEREZ  (Cuba).  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a  point  in 
regard  to  the  third  paragraph  of  article  389  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
which  refers  to  the  procedure  to  be  followed  by  the  different  members 
in  the  nomination  of  non-Government  delegates  to  the  conference, 
and  to  state  that  a  number  of  countries  have  experienced  great 
difficulty  in  the  designation  of  these  non-Government  delegates  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  no  procedure  has  been  indicated  in  the  text  of 
the  peace  treaty.  It  is  unnecessary  to  refer  to  these  difficulties,  but 
hat  they  have  occurred  is  a  question  of  regret.  The  delegation 
from  Cuba,  therefore,  respectfully  submits  the  following: 

The  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  is  requested  tostudy  the  ques 
tion  of  the  procedure  to  be  followed  by  the  different  members  in  the  nomination  of 
non-Government  delegates,  in  view  of  the  experience  of  the  different  countries  in 
regard  to  this  first  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  do  not  believe,  gentlemen,  if  I  may  be 
allowed  to  express  my  personal  opinion,  that  it  is  within  the  juris¬ 
diction  of  the  governing  body  to  modify  or  amplify  a  constitution 
drawn  up  at  Paris,  as  the  delegate  from  Cuba  wishes.  Such  a 
matter  would  have  to  be  submitted  to  the  League  of  Nations  itself. 

In  view  of  the  lack  of  instructions  or  special  directions  in  the  con¬ 
stitution,  it  would  seem  as  if  it  were  the  duty  of  each  country  to  pro¬ 
ceed  as  it  thinks  best.  I  seem  to  remember  however,  that  in  the 
reports  of  the  labor  commission  at  Paris  or  elsewhere,  remarks  were 
made  to  the  effect  that  in  the  choice  of  industrial  and  workers’  repre¬ 
sentatives  each  Government  was  recommended  to  select  such  dele¬ 
gates  from  the  most  representative  organizations  possible.  I  also 
seem  to  remember  that  the  fact  of  not  having  appointed  these  repre¬ 
sentatives  from  representative  labor  and  industrial  organizations 
would  warrant  objection  on  the  part  of  the  International  Labor 
Office.  I  offer  these  observations,  however,  purely  as  my  personal 
impression. 

Mr.  Perez  requests  to  be  recognized.  The  delegate  from  Cuba  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  PEREZ  (Cuba).  It  is  not  intended  in  the  motion  submitted 
that  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  shall  modify 
or  interpret  in  any  way  the  text  of  the  treaty  of  peace;  but  that  it 
should  study,  that  it  should  look  into  the  question  of  procedure. 
The  treaty  contains  no  stipulations  regarding  procedure,  and  it  is  a 
matter  of  fact  that  difficulties  have  arisen  in  a  number  of  countries, 
especially  in  those  countries  where  the  organization  of  industry  and 
of  labor  is  deficient.  I  do  not  need  to  go  into  the  question  of  fact, 
for  that  is  well  known  to  all  the  members  of  the  conference.  There¬ 
fore,  the  only  object  is  that  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  devote  its  attention  to  the  matter  of  procedure,  and 


if  it  finds  that  the  whole  subject  sliould  be  left  to  each  individaul 
member  to  determine,  it  should  so  recommend;  but  in  case  it  were 
possible  to  lay  down  rules  of  some  kind,  it  would  greatly  help  the 
different  Governments  and  contribute  to  the  efficiency  of  the  work 
of  this  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  believe  that  the  delegate  from  Cuba  may 
have  every  confidence  in  the  members  of  the  International  Labor 
Office  who  will  read  our  reports  at  Paris,  and  who  will  find  in  those 
reports  all  our  recommendations,  regardless  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  have  been  presented. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  may  I  suggest  to  the 
delegate  from  Cuba  that,  if  he  intends  to  press  his  suggestion,  he 
should  submit  it  and  that  it  be  printed  and  presented  to  the  con¬ 
ference,  not  as  part  of  this  report,  and  then  it  could  be  adopted  or 
rejected  by  the  conference  after  it  had  been  printed.  That  is  just 
simply  a  suggestion  that  I  make  to  the  delegate  from  Cuba,  and  I 
would  also  like  to  move  the  adoption  of  the  second  part  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  on  standing  orders. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  anyone  ask  to  be  recognized  on  the 
second  report  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders? 

Dr.  ELIZALDE  (Ecuador— remarks  in  Spanish).  The  reason 
Ecuador  did  not  appoint  any  employers’  or  workers’  delegate  is  that 
although  there  are  workers’  organizations  in  Ecuador,  there  are  no 
employers’  organizations  in  Ecuador;  hence,  there  is  only  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  Government. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Mahaim  is  recognized. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  Then  I  shall  simply  change  the  con¬ 
junction  “and”  to  “or”  in  the  phrase  “employers’  or  workers’ 
organization.”  I  hope  that  that  will  be  satisfactory  to  you. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  no  one  else  has  asked  to  be  recognized 
on  the  second  report  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders,  I  am 
going  to  put  it  to  a  vote. 

All  those  in  favor  of  the  second  report  of  the  committee  on  stand¬ 
ing  orders  please  raise  their  right  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

All  those  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  the  second  report  of  the  com 
mittee  on  standing  orders  please  raise  their  right  hands. 

[The  second  report  of  the  committee  on  standing  orders  is  unanl 
mously  adopted.] 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  next  thing  on  our  program  is  the  exam 
ination  and  discussion  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  credentials. 
As  the  reporter,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  is  momentarily  absent 
from  the  room,  but  probably  in  the  building,  I  have  sent  for  him, 
and  he  will  doubtless  be  present  shortly.  I  ask  you  to  be  patient 
a  moment,  and  to  keep  your  seats. 

We  will  now  proceed,  gentlemen  to  examine  and  discuss  the  report 
of  the  committee  on  credentials.  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  the  re¬ 
porter,  is  recognized 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President, 
I  move  the  adoption  of  the  supplementary  report  of  the  commission 
on  credentials.  This  report  which  was  printed  with  the  record  of 
Tuesday  deals  with  two  matters.  The  first  was  an  objection  lodged 
to  the  appointment  of  the  labor  delegate  from  Argentina.  The 
second  was  an  objection  lodged  to  the  appointment  of  the  labor 
delegate  from  Guatemala.  On  the  second  matter  the  commission 
have  been  able  to  come  to  a  unanimous  decision,  and  it  is  unneces¬ 
sary  therefore  for  me  to  say  anything  on  that  subject. 

On  the  other  matter,  the  objection  lodged  to  the  labor  delegate  from 
Argentina,  we  have  unfortunately  not  been  able  to  agree.  The  facts 
as  explained  to  the  commission  are  set  out  in  the  commission’s  report, 
and  there  is,  I  think,  no  disagreement  between  the  members  of  the 
commission  with  regard  to  them.  The  only  question  is  as  to  the  in¬ 
ference  which  should  be  drawn  from  those  facts.  Now,  the  situation 
is  an  exceptional  one.  It  is  somewhat  similar  to  the  situation  we  had 
to  consider  in  the  case  of  Japan.  It  is  a  case  where  there  is  no  one 
body  or  authority  representative  of  the  large  majority  of  the  workers 
of  the  country.  There  are  several  organizations  of  more  or  less  the 
same  size  and  influence,  none  of  them  possessing  any  outstanding 
position. 


110 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  question,  therefore,  which  the  Government  of  Argentina 
had  to  consider  was  what  action  it  should  take,  bearing  in  mind  the 
words  of  the  treaty.  Those  words  are  that  the  delegates  must  be 
appointed  in  agreement  with  the  organization,  if  any,  most  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  workers  of  the  country. 

Now,  without  expressing  any  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of  the 
action  taken  by  the  Argentine  Government,  the  majority  of  the  com¬ 
mission  were  of  opinion  that  in  these  special  circumstances  which 
prevail  in  Argentina  in  regard  to  the  trade-union  organizations 
it  was  not  necessary  or  desirable  for  the  conference  to  take  any  action. 
There  is  no  question  that  the  labor  delegate  actually  appointed  is 
really  representative  of  a  section  of  the  working  classes  of  Argen¬ 
tina.  Whether  he  is  representative  of  the  authority  or  body  which 
is  most  representative  of  those  classes  seems  to  the  majority  a  difficult 
question,  on  which  it  is  impossible  to  pronounce  decisively.  We 
should  rather  put  it  in  this  way,  that  there  is  at  present  in  Argen¬ 
tina  no  authority  which  can  be  regarded  as  representative  of  a  sub¬ 
stantial  majority  of  the  working  classes  of  Argentina.  In  these 
circumstances,  the  majority  of  the  commission  recommend  that  no 
action  be  taken. 

They  also  venture  a  suggestion.  The  case  is  one  which,  in  our 
view,  is  not  provided  for  by  the  treaty,  but  it  is  very  desirable  that 
Governments  which  are  placed  in  that  position  should  act,  as  we  are 
sure  they  desire  to  act,  as  far  as  possible  in  compliance  with  its  spirit. 
The  suggestion  which  we  have  ventured  to  make  in  our  report  is  that 
in  such  circumstances  Governments  should  endeavor  to  arrive,  by 
consultation,  and,  if  possible,  agreement,  with  the  various  organiza¬ 
tions  concerned,  that  a  selection  be  made  which  would  command 
the  general  approval  of  those  organizations.  It  may  not  be  possible 
always  to  secure  that,  but  we  think  that  if  they  make  the  endeavor 
this  conference  will  not  question  the  results.  It  is  only  a  sugges¬ 
tion  made  for  consideration  by  the  Governments.  It  is  not  intended 
to  be  in  any  way  a  dictation  to  them. 

With  these  words,  I  move  the  adoption  of  the  committee’s  report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Oudegeest,  of  the  Netherlands,  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  OUDEGEEST  (Netherlands— remarks  in  Dutch).  Asa  mem¬ 
ber  of  the  committee  on  credentials  I  must  oppose  the  participation 
of  the  Argentine  delegate  in  this  conference  for  these  reasons:  In 
the  peace  treaty  it  is  stipulated  that  the  Government  shall  designate 
both  employers’  and  workers’  delegates,  in  consultation  with  the 
most  representative  organization  of  the  country,  and  it  is  quite 
definitely  established  that  such  was  not  the  case  as  regards  Ar¬ 
gentina.  The  report  of  the  committee  on  credentials  says: 

The  labor  delegate  was  selected  by  the  Argentine  Government  in  agreement  with 
the  association  of  railway  workers,  known  as  La  Fraternidad.  This  association  is 
the  oldest  association  of  workers  in  the  country;  its  membership  is  over  15,000  and 
includes  over  90  percent  of  the  railway  workers.  It  is  incorporated  under  the  Argen¬ 
tine  law.  There  is  also  a  federation  of  trade-unions  representing  certain  industries 
(including  commercial  and  office  employments)  centered  in  the  Provinces  of  Buenos 
Aires  and  Santa  Fe,  the  membership  of  which  is  uncertain.  In  the  letter  of  objec¬ 
tion  it  is  claimed  that  the  membership  is  SO, 000.  The  Government  delegates  state 
that  tho  membership  fluctuates  considerably  from  time  to  time  and  at  the  present 
moment  is  probably  between  20,000  and  30,000. 

There  are  no  accurate  statistics  available.  These  associations  are  not  incorporated 
under  the  Argentine  law  and  have  no  recognized  legal  existence.  It  does  not  appear, 
however,  that  they  are  illegal  associations.  The  commission  is  informed  that  there 
is  no  law  in  Argentina  in  regard  to  the  formation  of  trade-unions.  The  Argentine 
Government,  delegates  defended  the  course  taken  by  the  Government  on  the  ground 
that  La  Fraternidad  was  the  only  association  which  represented  workers  in  all 
parts  of  the  country  and  which  is  recognized  by  and  has  any  responsibilities  under 
the  law  of  the  State. 

Gentlemen.  I  consider  that  this  assembly  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  arguments  set  forth  in  this  report.  It  may  be  very  fine  for  this 
Fraternidad  association  to  be  the  oldest  in  Argentina,  but  that 
does  not  mean  that  it  ;s  the  most  representative.  It  may  be  fine  for 
this  association  to  have  organized  90  per  cent  of  the  railway  workers; 
that  does  not  mean,  however,  that  it  includes  the  workers  in  the 
industries,  in  commerce,  etc.  This  association  may  not  even  be 
incorporated,  according  to  Argentine  law,  and  that  has  nothing  to 
do  with  this  conference.  The  conference  has  simply  to  deal  with 
the  question  of  ascertaining  whether  the  organization  which  is  rep¬ 


resented  here  is  the  most  representative  organization.  And  if  it  is 
true,  as  is  said  in  the  report,  that  the  organization  whose  in¬ 
terests  we  are  defending  has  only  20,000  or  30,000  members,  even 
then  it  has  the  right  to  be  represented  here  because  it  is  more  repre¬ 
sentative  than  the  one  which  is  represented  at  present. 

As  secretary  of  the  International  Federation,  of  Labor  I  have 
received  from  the  protesting  organization  the  dues  of  80,000  members, 
which  makes  me  certain  that  there  are  that  number  of  members  in 
that  federation.  Further  in  their  report  when  they  say  that  at  times 
there  are  a  certain  number  of  members  and  at  other  times  a 
different  number,  the  committee  have  assumed  that  this  organi¬ 
zation  has  an  unstable  existence.  But  we  can  confidently  state  that 
this  organization  has  existed  for  more  than  ten  years  and  that  among 
its  members  are  workers  in  industry  and  commerce  and  sailors  and 
longshoremen  as  well.  At  the  present  time  it  has  two  members,  its 
secretary  and  its  treasurer,  who  are  making  a  trip  to  Europe  on  behalf 
of  their  organization  to  study  the  different  forms  of  union  organiza¬ 
tion  which  exist  in  all  the  countries  of  Europe.  I  am  surprised  that 
such  an  organization  can  be  said  to  have  merely  an  ephemeral  life 
when  it  sends  two  men  to  visit  Europe  for  six  months.  And  there¬ 
fore,  for  the  reasons  presented,  I  contest  the  figures  brought  forward 
in  the  report,  and  1  contest  also  its  form. 

We  have  been  informed  in  the  same  report  that  the  Fraternidad 
organization  has  a  legal  status;  but  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  in  several  countries  the  same  situation  exists;  the  law  pro¬ 
vides  that  a  trade  organization  may  be  incorporated,  i.  e.,  they 
desire  the  law  to  give  a  civil  status  to  these  organizations,  but  that 
does  not  mean  that  all  organizations  must  do  so.  And  there  is  one 
outstanding  fact,  that  is,  that  in  the  last  10  or  15  years  many  union 
organizations,  which  are  nevertheless  powerful,  have  not  laid  claim 
to  this  right,  because  it  is  a  right  and  not  a  duty  and  because  they 
have  no  need  of  being  incorporated.  I  was  designated  by  the 
Government  of  the  Netherlands  as  official  delegate  to  this  conference 
in  my  position  of  president  of  the  Central  Trade-Union  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands.  Its  organization  is  the  most  representative  in  the  country, 
and  yet  it  has  no  legal  status.  I  may  cite  the  case  of  Mr.  Mertens.  the 
Belgian  workers’  delegate,  who  is  likewise  an  official  delegate,  and 
yet  his  organization  has  no  legal  status  in  his  country. 

That,  then,  is  the  reason  why  I  can  not  follow  the  argument  given 
in  this  report,  and  1  ask  the  conference  not  to  consider  its  statements 
as  arguments  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  the  Argentine  delegate. 
Finally,  1  wish  to  point  out  to  the  conference  that  there  has  been  a 
precedent  in  this  matter  during  this  very  conference.  In  fact,  the 
denominational  organizations  of  France  protested  because  they  were 
not  represented  in  the  French  workers’  delegation;  and  the  French 
minister  replied: 

The  French  organization,  the  General  Federation  of  Labor,  contains  a  million 
members;  your  organization  has  only  76,000;  therefore  the  federation  is  the  more 
representative. 

Furthermore,  this  reply  of  the  French  minister  was  confirmed  by 
a  vote  of  the  present  conference;  and  I  therefore  ask  you  to  give  the 
same  reply  as  regards  the  request  of  Argentina,  that  is,  to  decide 
to-day  that  the  Argentine  delegate  whoishere  present  does  not  repre¬ 
sent  the  most  representative  organization,  and  to  refuse  him  admis¬ 
sion  to  the  present  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  request  the  floor  for  a  moment.  It  is  not 
proper  that  1  should  occupy  the  chair  now  that  Mr.  Jouhaux,  one  of 
the  vice  presidents  of  the  conference,  is  in  the  room;  I  have  seen  that 
he  is  here  and  I  beg  him  to  take  my  place  at  once. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  shall  give  way  to  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches,  and  I  hope  he  will  continue  to  act  as  chairman. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux  is  recognized. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Gentlemen,  I  think  I  must  take  part 
in  the  discussion,  because  we  are  touching  now  on  a  point  of  the 
utmost  importance.  No  feeling  of  hostility  enters  our  minds,  no 
feeling  of  animosity  towards  the  workers’  delegate  from  the  Argen¬ 
tine  Republic  who  is  now  at  this  conference;  but  we  hold  that  if  the 
conference  should  admit  the  delegate  from  the  Argentine  Republic 
under  the  existing  conditions  and  under  the  conditions  of  his  ap- 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


111 


pointment,  the  article  of  the  peace  treaty  providing  for  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  would  be  violated  im¬ 
mediately.  The  International  Labor  Conference  must  be  made  up 
of  the  delegatee  from  the  various  Governments  and  of  the  delegates 
from  the  employers’  and  the  workers’  organizations  which  are  most 
representative  of  those  groups  in  the  respective  countries.  Certainly 
no  ambiguity  can  arise  in  the  interpretation  of  that  statement. 
It  is  clearly  understood  that  an  organization,  in  order  to  be  the  most 
representative  of  the  labor  force  of  a  nation,  must  not  be  limited  to  a 
single  industry,  but  must  include  all  industries. 

But  here  we  find  ourselves  in  the  presence  of  a  delegate  who 
belongs  to  the  railway  federation,  i.  e.,  an  organization  which 
represents  merely  the  railway  workers  of  the  Argentine  Republic. 
As  against  this  organization  there  exists  a  national  organization  which 
includes  the  majority  of  the  existing  industries  of  the  Argentine 
Republic,  whose  membership  varies  between  80,000  and  120,000. 
The  question  whether  this  organization  has  been  given  a  legal  status 
by  the  Government  of  the  Argentine  Republic  is  not  before  us  at  the 
present  moment. 

I  do  not  wish  to  go  into  a  discussion  of  the  subject,  but  I  might 
say  that  at  the  present  time  there  is  a  law  on  trade-unions  in  Argen¬ 
tina — rather  a  law  under  discussion  affecting  trade-unions — against 
which  the  majority  of  the  workers  in  the  Argentine  Republic  have 
protested  through  meetings,  demonstrations,  and  strikes.  That  ques¬ 
tion  can  not  come  up  in  connection  with  what  we  have  to  pass  upon 
now;  the  only  point  for  us  is  to  find  out  whether  the  federation  on 
behalf  of  which  a  protest  is  here  made  is  more  representative  of  the 
Argentine  labor  forces  than  the  organization  now  represented  here 
by  the  workers’  delegate  from  Argentina.  And  I  must  say  that  it  is 
impossible  to  come  to  any  other  conclusion  as  to  the  question  before 
us  than  the  one  to  which  we  have  come. 

It  is  sufficient  to  note  the  different  labor  organizations  in  this  con¬ 
ference  to  get  confirmation  of  this,  whether  it  be  Great  Britain, 
Belgium,  Canada,  France,  Italy,  Spain,  Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark, 
or  the  Netherlands.  The  workers’  delegates  who  are  here  from  these 
countries  do  not  represent  this  or  that  union,  this  or  that  federation  of 
unions,  but  the  federations  of  all  the  unions  in  their  country,  and  hence 
the  national  trade-union  organization  of  the  country.  It  is  thus,  and 
only  thus,  that  the  clause  in  the  peace  treaty  must  be  interpreted. 

If  it  were  otherwise,  you  would  be  violating  the  clause  itself  or 
the  spirit  of  it  at  least;  you  would  be  doing  great  injury  to  the  workers’ 
delegates  who  are  here  and  who  might  expect  that  in  future  it  would 
not  be  the  organization  most  representative  of  the  labor  force  which 
would  attend  international  labor  conferences,  but  one  union  organiza¬ 
tion  or  another  as  might  be  designated  by  the  Government.  We 
can  not  accept  this  arbitrary  method,  and  we  declare  that  in  con¬ 
formity  to  the  peace  treaty  itself  and  in  its  spirit  and  laying  aside  all 
question  of  animosity  or  hostility,  we  can  not  admit  the  labor  dele¬ 
gate  from  the  Argentine  Republic  under  the  present  conditions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  recognizes  Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi, 
the  Argentine  Government  delegate. 

Dr.  ANASTASI  (Argentina — remarks  in  Spanish).  On  behalf  of 
the  Government  delegation  of  Argentina  I  wish  to  make  a  few 
remarks  as  to  the  statements  presented  by  the  majority  in  its  report, 
without  losing  sight  of  the  objections  of  the  minority.  Let  me 
reverse  the  order  and  speak  first  on  the  minority  report.  It  is  strange 
that  Mr.  Oudegeest  at  the  same  time  acts  as  a  judge  and  as  a 
party.  In  his  capacity  of  secretary  he  signs  the  only  protest 
brought  forward.  As  judge  he  signs  the  minority  report.  The 
minority  holds  that  the  nomination  of  the  workers’  delegates  has  not 
been  made  in  accordance  with  the  most  representative  organizations, 
but  it  does  not  say  which  of  those  organizations  is  most  representative. 
The  minority  would  be  at  a  loss  if  it  was  obliged  to  name  it.  The 
communication  annexed  refers  only  to  the  federation  of  trade-unions 
of  the  Argentine  Republic,  without  specifying  which  one ;  for 
there  are  three  federations:  The  Regional  Workers’  Federation  of 
Argentina,  the  Workers’  Federation,  called  the  organization  of  the 
Fifth  t'ongress,  and  the  Catholic  Workers’  Organization  But  one 


of  these  three  organizations,  or  all  jointly,  includes  80,000  organized 
workers,  according  to  the  communication.  Those  80,000  members 
are  just  a  drop  of  water  in  a  large  sea  in  a  workers’  population  of 
2,000,000. 

The  figures  given  are  taken  from  the  Argentine  Economic  Review 
in  its  last  issue.  The  federation  to  which  the  protest  refers  is  no 
doubt  the  Regional  Workers’  Federation,  because  the  existence  of 
the  Fifth  Congress  is  a  doubtful  and  vague  one.  This  federation 
only  shows  signs  of  life  when  it  comes  to  commemorating  the  Russian 
revolution  and  calling  a  general  strike,  which  as  far  as  Buenos  Aires 
is  concerned,  goes  on  as  unnoticed  as  an  earthquake.  The  Regional 
Workers’ Federation  includes  only  about  20,000  organized  members. 
This  number  as  compared  to  the  five  and  a  half  millions  of 
members  of  the  English  trade-unions  mentioned  in  the  June  issue 
of  the  Monthly  Labor  Review  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics 
is  insignificant.  And  even  if  we  take  these  20,000  members  for 
granted,  they  represent  organizations  completely  foreign  to  the  work 
of  this  conference,  as,  for  instance,  the  National  Teachers’  League 
and  the  Trade-Union  of  Newspaper  Men.  I  take  from  page  37  of 
the  Bulletin  of  the  National  Labor  Department  of  Buenos  Aires  the 
figures  mentioned  above,  and  as  this  bulletin  has  just  been  received, 
I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  in  order  to  submit  these  figures  to  you. 

I  want  to  speak  particularly  to  the  workmen.  The  Argentine  Gov¬ 
ernment  has  been  of  the  opinion  that  so  far  the  most  representative 
workmen’s  organizations  of  the  country  are  the  Fraternidad  and  the 
Federation  of  Maritime  Workers.  My  remarks  are  not  intended 
to  lessen  the  importance  of  the  Regional  Worker’s  Federation, 
which  everybody  knows  is  a  bona  fide,  conservative,  and  peaceable 
organization  to  such  an  extent  that  even  the  employers  have  some¬ 
times  applied  to  it  in  order  to  settle  points  of  conflict  by  arbitration. 
It  is  the  cradle  for  a  strong  organization  for  the  future.  As  between 
the  Fraternidad  and  the  Federation  of  Maritime  Workers,  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  has  preferred  the  first  one,  for  the  reasons  which  the  work¬ 
men’s  delegates  will  explain  to  you. 

The  Government  of  Argentina  acted  on  an  invitation  of  Mr. 
Gompers  who  had  invited  the  Governments  to  appoint  a  workmen’s 
delegate  from  bona  fide  associations,  from  representative  associa¬ 
tions,  and  who  had  left  it  to  the  Governments  to  decide  which  were 
those  organizations.  The  argument  which  has  been  brought  for¬ 
ward  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  does  not  hold,  because  his  figures  seem  to  be 
erroneous.  I  quote  the  official  statistics  of  the  federation  itself, 
which  show  that  the  federation  has  20,000  organized  members. 

The  precedent  in  the  case  of  France  which  has  been  quoted  by 
Mr.  Oudegeest  can  not  be  invoked  because  the  difference  between 
the  figures  he  mentioned  are  really  too  great.  The  General  Con¬ 
federation  of  Labor  of  France  numbers  one  and  a  half  million 
members  and  the  federation  only  20,000,  so  you  see  that  the  difference 
is  an  enormous  one. 

Now,  as  the  appointment  of  the  workers’  delegate  was  made 
from  the  most  representative  of  the  workmen’s  organizations,  I 
suggest  that  the  workers  waive  their  objections  which — no  doubt 
unconsciously — have  wronged  a  very  respectable  association,  an 
association  which  holds  a  very  important  position  in  the  history 
of  the  trade-union  movement  of  Argentina.  I  urge  them  to  with¬ 
draw  their  opposition,  which  really  is  not  fully  considered  and 
which  is  not  founded  on  evidence  and  completely  ignores  the  evolu¬ 
tion  of  the  workers’  movement  in  Argentina. 

We  have  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  International  Conference  is 
the  first  one  in  which  the  power  of  delegates  appointed  by  a  sovereign 
Government  is  subject  to  review,  according  to  article  389  of  the 
peace  treaty,  but  this  power  must  be  exercised  with  great  tact  and 
discretion  so  as  not  to  wound  very  legitimate  national  sensibilities. 

The  rejection  of  the  workers’  delegate  would  injure  a  Government 
which  has  endeavored  from  the  very  outset  to  carry  out  the  ideal  of 
the  League  of  Nations  and  the  International  Labor  Organization,  for 
the  benefit,  according  to  an  expression  used  by  the  Argentine 
minister,  Mr.  Pueyrredon,  of  those  masses  of  men  who,  though 
contributing  by  their  work  to  the  welfare  of  the  community,  have 
now  only  poverty  and  misery  in  store. 


112 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


We  agree  with  the  decision  of  the  majority  so  far  as  it  recommends 
the  approval  of  the  powers  of  the  delegate,  Senor  Balino;  but  we  can 
not  approve  of  all  the  reasons,  because  the  power  of  this  conference 
is  limited  to  the  acceptance  or  to  the  rejection  of  delegates,  without 
the  recommendation  of  regulations  for  the  future  in  a  manner  quite 
irregular. 

As  I  have  shown  you,  the  Government  of  Argentina  think  that 
they  have  honestly  and  faithfully  interpreted  the  treaty,  and  the 
same  spirit  will  guide  them  in  the  future;  therefore,  any  innuendo 
such  as  that  suggested  by  the  majority,  based  on  a  protest,  without 
evidence,  would  look  like  an  unfair  and  uncalled  for  censure,  es¬ 
pecially  at  a  moment  when  we  begin,  with  grave  difficulties  and 
opposition,  to  frame  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

We  ask  that  the  report  of  the  majority  be  approved,  without  taking 
into  consideration  the  suggestions  and  advice  which  have  crept 
into  this  report.  It  is  understood  that  these  arguments  do  not  refer 
to  the  statements  made  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  who  evidently 
has  modified  the  wording  of  the  report  as  written. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  next  speaker  on  the  list  is  Mr.  Americo 
Balino,  Argentine  workers’  delegate,  the  delegate  whose  appoint¬ 
ment  is  contested.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  Mr.  Balino 
is  entitled  to  speak;  if  it  is  necessary  to  justify  this  opinion  to  this 
assembly,  the  Chair  refers  to  the  last  paragraph  of  article  3  in  the 
draft  standing  orders  of  the  conference,  a  paragraph  which  has  been 
retained  in  the  final  printed  version.  The  paragraph  which  I  shall 
quote  reads  as  follows: 

Any  delegate  or  adviser  to  whose  nomination  objection  has  been  taken  retains  the 
same  rights  as  other  delegates  and  advisers  until  the  question  of  his  admission  shall 
have  been  finally  decided. 

Under  the  terms  of  this  paragraph,  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt 
that  Mr.  Balino  has  a  right  to  the  floor,  and  I  therefore  recognize  him. 

Mr.  BALINO  (Argentina — remarks  in  Spanish).  Will  the  dele¬ 
gates  permit  me  to  call  the  attention  of  the  conference  to  a 
matter  which  is  not  of  general  interest?  The  conference  has 
still  to  solve  questions  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  I  should 
not  occupy  its  time  with  small  matters,  but  if  this  happens,  the 
fault  is  not  mine.  My  appointment  as  delegate  has  been  unjustly 
protested  and  I  am  under  the  moral  obligation  of  defending  it, 
because  thereby  I  at  the  same  time  defend  the  dignity  of  the  Argen¬ 
tine  Government,  the  bona  fide  character  of  the  association  to  which 
I  belong,  and  my  own  personal  dignity. 

The  protest  is  unjust  and  based  on  misinformation.  The  majority 
report  is  based  on  the  argument  that  in  reality  the  federation 
which  has  been  quoted  as  the  one  from  whose  members  the  delegates 
should  have  been  appointed,  really  has  not  80,000  members, 
and  it  is  not  the  most  important  in  the  country.  The  Regional 
Workers’  Federation  has  not  20,000  regular  members,  and  I  invite 
the  members  of  the  International  Federation  of  Labor  who  signed  the 
protest  and  who  are  present  at  this  conference  at  once  to  instigate  an 
inquiry  in  order  to  determine  in  reality  whether  or  not  the  Regional 
Workers’  Federation  has  the  number  of  members  which  it  claims. 

I  want  to  make  the  whole  argument  more  one  of  quality  than  of 
quantity.  Even  if  you  admit  there  are  20,000  members  you  should 
compare  the  achievements  of  the  different  associations  and  the 
achievements  of  the  fraternity  that  I  represent.  La  Fraternidad 
has  secured  very  favorable  economic  conditions  for  its  members 
and  it  has  never  in  any  way  used  its  power  to  the  detriment  of 
national  economic  welfare. 

I  understand  that  Mr.  Oudegeest  lodges  his  protest  in  agreement 
with  the  Argentine  Regional  Workers’  Federation,  united,  with  the 
International  Federation,  of  which  Comrade  Oudegeest  is  secretary, 
but  on  the  other  hand  I  do  not  understand  how  the  dissent  can  be 
maintained  without  a  reliable  basis  of  information  and  without 
being  strengthened  by  argument  and  convincing  proofs. 

I  have  not  come  here  usurping  the  rights  of  anybody  and  much 
less  the  rights  which  the  Argentine  Regional  Workers’  Federation 
may  have- 


As  a  man  of  conscience,  educated  in  a  working  class  of  severe  moral 
standards  I  answer  for  the  correctness  of  all  my  statements  and 
consider  myself  therefore  duly  entitled  to  sit  in  this  assembly, 
representing  the  workers  of  the  Argentine  Republic. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Varela  is  recognized. 

Dr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  I  have  a  few  remarks  to  make.  I 
belong  to  a  neighboring  country  to  the  Argentine  Republic,  one 
which  is  bound  to  her  by  the  ties  of  history  and  by  a  common  ideal. 
Everything  which  interests  the  Argentine  Republic  is  worthy  of 
consideration  to  my  country.  And  yet  I  do  not  feel  that  I  can 
say  in  the  present  case,  if  we  examine  the  question  from  a  technical 
standpoint,  which  of  the  labor  organizations  is  the  more  representa¬ 
tive.  It  has  been  shown  that  statistics  overthrow  statistics.  We 
must  therefore  make  our  decision  on  higher  grounds  and  recognize 
that  the  Argentine  delegate  was  designated  in  good  faith.  For  my 
part,  I  so  believe,  and  this  is  my  reason:  At  the  present  time  the 
President  of  the  Argentine  Republic  is  the  eminent  statesman,  Dr. 
Hipolito  Irigoyen,  who  has  always  pursued  a  policy  of  progress 
and  humanity.  Nobody  can  make  me  believe  that  he  would  have 
thwarted  the  hope  of  the  workers.  For  my  part,  I  give  my  vote 
to  the  admission  of  Delegate  Balino  and  I  place  full  confidence  in 
the  perspicacity  and  the  uprightness  of  the  Argentine  Government. 
[Applause.] 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  formally  move  the  closure 
of  debate  unless  some  one  else  wants  to  speak. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  seems  to  me,  since  no  one  has  asked  to 
be  recognized,  that  the  discussion  is  automatically  closed,  and  that 
there  is  no  need  to  invoke  the  closure. 

No  one  having  asked  to  be  recognized,  I  shall  entertain  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Crawford  to  adjourn - 

Mr.  OUDEGEEST  (Netherlands).  I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  the  floor,  since  closure  has  not 
yet  been  declared. 

A  Voice.  You  have  already  spoken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  objection  is  made  that  you  have  already 
spoken  on  the  same  subject. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  If  Mr.  Oudegeest  is  not  allowed  to 
speak,  I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Since  there  is  a  motion  for  closure,  I  think 
that  the  rules  require  me  to  ask  whether  it  is  seconded  or  not. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  I  am  opposed  to  a  closure  before 
giving  Mr.  Oudegeest,  whose  statements  have  been  questioned, 
an  opportunity  to  reply  to  the  arguments  presented  by  the  delegate 
from  Argentina. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  shall  request  the  assembly  to  allow  the 
gentleman  to  speak. 

Dr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  I  think  that  we  ought  first  to  with¬ 
draw  the  motion  for  closure;  the  rules  are  absolute  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  am  willing  to  give  the  speaker 
the  opportunity  to  speak,  and  I  therefore  withdraw  my  motion  for 
that  reason . 

Mr.  OLTDEGEEST  (Netherlands — remarks  in  Dutch).  I  do  not 
wish  to  take  up  the  arguments  of  the  different  speakers  in  favor  of 
the  chosen  representative  of  the  workers  from  Argentina.  I  do  not 
consider  that  I  am  in  the  position  of  a  judge  and  also  of  a  prosecutor. 
I  am  more  than  ever  confirmed  in  my  opinion  after  hearing  the  sta¬ 
tistics  quoted  by  the  Government  representatives.  If  the  20,000  is  a 
small  drop  of  water  in  a  large  river  or  a  large  sea  of  Argentine  workers, 
15,000  is  still  less.  According  to  the  information  given  by  the  rep¬ 
resentative  of  the  workers  of  Argentina  at  the  conference,  the  fact 
that  they  never  engaged  in  revolutionary  activities  was  a  great  argu¬ 
ment  in  their  favor,  but  that  is  probably  the  reason  the  Government 
of  Argentina  chose  them,  considering  them  the  best  behaved  of  the 
lot.  Also  the  delegate  from  the  workers  mentions  the  seamen’s 
union,  but  the  union  which  we  represent  also  represents  the  federa¬ 
tion  of  seamen,  and  also  represents  the  different  organizations  in 
Argentina,  whereas  Mr.  Balino  only  represents  one,  and  therefore 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


113 


for  these  reasons  we  propose  that  this  conference  refuse  admission  to 
the  delegate  appointed  by  the  Government. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  request  for  closure  repeated?  Does 
anybody  oppose  closure? 

Nobody  opposing  it,  it  is  carried.  Now  we  shall  proceed  to  take 
a  vote  on  the  amendment  according  to  the  custom  which  has  already 
been  observed  in  this  assembly;  but  first  I  desire  to  state  that  the 
vote  which  we  are  going  to  take  is  provided  for  in  article  389  of  the 
peace  treaty,  the  last  paragraph  of  which  reads  as  follows: 

The  credentials  of  delegates  and  their  advisers  shall  be  subject  to  scrutiny  by  the 
conference,  which  may,  by  two-thirds  of  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present, 
refuse  to  admit  any  delegate  or  adviser  whom  it  deems  not  to  have  been  nominated 
in  accordance  with  this  article. 

It  is  therefore  proper  to  take  a  record  vote.  That  is.  furthermore, 
provided  for  in  article  15  of  our  standing  orders,  which  read: 

A  record  vote  shall  be  taken  in  all  cases  in  which  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the 
votes  is  required  by  the  convention. 

A  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  votes  cast  being  required  by  article 
389  of  the  peace  treaty,  it  is  proper  according  to  our  standing  orders 
to  take  a  record  vote. 

According  to  the  precedent  to  which  I  referred  just  now,  we  have 
before  us  two  reports,  one  presented  by  the  majority  and  the  other 
by  the  minority.  The  second  may  be  considered  as  was  done  in 
the  case  of  the  discussion  which  took  place  on  the  report  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  after  which  we  voted  on  the  report  of  Mr.  Newton  W.  Row¬ 
ell.  With  this  precedent,  we  ought  to  vote  on  the  minority  report. 
Is  everybody  agreed  on  this  point?  As  there  is  no  opposition,  we 
shall  proceed  in  that  case  to  a  record  vote  by  calling  the  roll.  All 
those  in  favor  of  the  minority  report  will  so  indicate. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  propose  to  read  out  the  names, 
taking  each  country  in  alphabetical  order.  Those  who  are  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Oudegeest’s  motion  will  say  “yes”;  those  against  it  will  say 
“no.” 

[The  result  of  the  roll  call  was  as  follows:] 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  Matti  Paassivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrinii. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 


Yes— 25. 

Netherlands: 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 


No— 44. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasl. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Michel  L6vie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 


Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Ferdinand  Stastny  (substitute 
for  Mr.  R.  Tayerle). 

Denmark: 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 


France: 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  M.  P. 
Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuz&ne. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 
Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Cast  berg. 


Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra 
Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jastrzebowski  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny). 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowioc. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos6  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Sweden: 

Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


Mr.  STASTNY  (Czecho-Slovakia).  The  representative  of  Czecho¬ 
slovakia,  Mr.  Tayerle,  is  absent,  but  I  am  here  in  his  place,  and  I 
wish  to  call  the  secretary’s  attention  to  the  fact  that  my  name  was 
not  called.  I  vote  “No”  on  the  question. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  For  the  motion,  25;  against,  44. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  shall  now  vote  on  the  report  of  Sir  Mal¬ 
colm  Delevingne.  Taking  into  consideration  the  fact  that  it  is  no 
longer  a  question  of  refusal  of  admission,  but  merely  of  the  number 
of  votes  given  to  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne’s  report,  I  think  that  a 
record  vote  is  unnecessary. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  suggest  that  the  vote  be  taken  by  show 
of  the  hand. 

The  PRESIDENT.  All  those  in  favor  of  the  report  of  Sir  Mal¬ 
colm  Delevingne  please  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  report  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  is  adopted  by  54  votes 
against  17. 

Now,  gentlemen,  inasmuch  as  our  program  is  finished,  I  think  that 
we  can  adjourn.  I  must  remind  you  that  the  next  session  is  Monday 
at  half-past  2.  I  wish  also  to  remind  the  Government  delegates  that 
they  were  requested  this  morning  to  meet  here  at  this  time.  They 
should  not  leave  the  room  at  this  time. 

[Meeting  adjourned  to  Monday,  November  24,  at  half-past  2.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  A.  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Michel  Levie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons). 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  F.  N.  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Luis  Marino  Perez  (substitute 
for  Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Car¬ 
denas). 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 


Cuba — Concluded. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  Ferdinand  Stastny  (substitute 
for  Mr.  R.  Tayerle). 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 
Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Tony  Reymond  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine). 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr  P.  Collinet  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Louis  Guerin). 

Mr.  G.  Dumoulin  (substitute  for  Mr 
L4on  Jouhaux). 


146865—20 - 8 


114 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Dr.  S.  Miall  (substitute  for  Mr.  D.  S. 
Marjoribanks). 

Mr.  C.  W.  Bowerman  (substitute  for 
Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart- Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Soflanopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantaeuzene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  J.  D.  F.  Engel  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee). 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 


Italy — Continued. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  AngioloCabrini,  M.P.). 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Dr.  K.  Kiga  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Eikichi  Kamada). 

Dr.  T.  Uyeda  (substitute  for  Dr. 
Minoru  Oka). 

Dr.  R.  Godai  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Sanji  Muto). 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 


Panama: 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jastrzebowski  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny). 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 


Serbs, Croats, and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjfiborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  Hallrqd  von  Koch 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


SEVENTEENTH  SESSION— MONDAY,  NOVEMBER  24,  1919, 


The  conference  convened  at  2.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson, 
president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  make  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  A  telegram  has  been  received 
from  the  minister  of  state  of  Luxemburg,  asking  that  Luxemburg 
be  admitted  to  the  conference.  The  committee  of  selection  thought 
it  unnecessary  to  refer  this  telegram  to  the  committee  which  con¬ 
sidered  applications  for  admission,  and  recommends  to  the  confer- 
ference  that  Luxemburg  be  admitted  on  the  same  terms  as  Finland. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is,  Shall  the  recommendation 
of  the  committee  that  Luxemburg  be  admitted  on  the  same  terms  as 
Finland  be  agreed  to? 

A.s  many  as  favor  agreeing  to  the  report  of  the  committee  will  raise 
their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

The  report  is  agreed  to  unanimously. 

The  next  order  of  business  is  the  report  of  the  commission  on 
hours  of  labor. 

Mr.  Fontaine  is  recognized  on  behalf  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen, 
general  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour 
week  has  already  taken  place  in  this  assembly — indeed  it  has  ex¬ 
tended  over  several  meetings.  Views  held  by  the  different  groups 
in  this  assembly  have  been  expressed  in  the  course  of  the  debate, 
and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  quite  unnecessary  for  the  discus¬ 
sion  to  be  resumed.  You  have  simply  detailed  the  commission  to 
examine  the  amendments,  compare  them  with  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee’s  text,  and,  wherever  the  amendments  are  adopted,  to 
rectify  the  text  of  the  organizing  committee,  and  finally  to  submit 
the  new  text  to  the  conference. 

We  have  accomplished  this  task  of  adjustment  and  conciliation, 
and  the  report  shows  in  connection  with  each  article  just  what 
we  have  understood  it  to  mean  and  how  we  have  framed  it. 
The  commission  will  be  satisfied  wTith  whatever  arrangements  the 
conference  makes  for  the  discussion  of  each  article,  and  at  the 
same  time  for  the  giving  of  an  explanation  of  the  opinions  which 
inspired  it. 

A  single  general  statement  might  be  made  to  advantage  at  the  out¬ 
set  of  this  discussion  of  the  various  articles — a  statement  about  the 


spirit  which  has  inspired  the  commission  in  the  work  which  it  has 
carried  on.  It  was  the  wish  of  the  commission  to  declare  quite  posi¬ 
tively  for  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  and  of  the  48-hour  week. 
The  commission  therefore  made  the  text  so  accurate  and  so  precise 
as  to  establish  this  principle  beyond  all  doubt.  That  accomplished, 
it  did  not  refuse  to  consider  any  exceptions  that  might  be  necessary, 
either  permanently,  owing  to  the  nature  of  certain  work,  or  tem¬ 
porarily,  when  the  convention  should  be  first  put  into  force. 

The  commission  did  not  find  itself  in  a  position  to  specify  all  such 
exceptions,  nor  to  come  to  a  decision  with  regard  to  all  the  schedules 
of  exceptions  submitted.  The  commission  did  not  believe  that  it 
could  assume  the  responsibility  for  such  schedules.  It  was  of  the 
opinion,  therefore,  that  other  methods  should  be  sought  for  the 
establishment  of  guaranties  which  could  not  be  established  by 
means  of  schedules.  It  also  felt  that  at  first  the  convention  should 
be  left  as  flexible  as  possible  in  order  to  obviate  false  starts.  In  order 
to  prevent  abuses,  however,  the  commission  relies  on  three  means 
of  control:  First,  control  by  workers’  and  employers’  organizations, 
which  are  sometimes  consulted  for  advice  and  sometimes  for  their 
agreement  to  certain  specifications  and  exceptions.  Next,  it 
relies  on  the  control  exercised  by  the  Internationa]  Labor  Office; 
all  exceptions  in  actual  practice  shall  be  reported  to  this  office, 
which  will  have  charge  of  seeing  that  such  exceptions  are  in  harmony 
with  the  spirit  of  the  convention,  and,  when  necessary,  of  proposing 
to  subsequent  conferences  any  additions  to  the  text  which  it  may 
consider  necessary.  Finally,  there  are  legal  measures,  i.  e.,  control 
by  each  Government,  which  shall  see  to  it  that  both  the  spirit  and 
the  letter  of  the  convention  are  obeyed.  We  hope  that  the  text 
which  we  are  submitting,  the  result  of  mutual  concessions  and  dis¬ 
cussions,  will  receive  the  sanction  of  the  conference  and  that  it 
will  be  almost  unanimously  approved.  The  draft  which  we  are 
submitting  is, we  think,  a  good  start  for  the  8-hour  day,  and  opens 
the  way  toward  real  progress. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  are  through,  Mr.  Fontaine? 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Yes;  I  have  finished. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Parsons,  of  the  Canadian  delegation. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  I  beg  to  make  a  short  statement  on 
behalf  of  myself  and  those  whom  I  represent — the  Canadian  employ¬ 
ers — in  connection  with  the  report  which  is  now  before  the  con¬ 
ference;  and  I  may  say  I  will  hand  a  copy  of  this  to  the  translator 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


115 


afterwards  so  that  he  can  read  it  in  full.  In  speaking  for  Canadian 
employers,  many  of  whom  have  been  consulted  since  this  conference 
was  in  session,  I  beg  to  state  as  follows: 

1.  While  in  many  industries  the  eight-hour  day  is  already  in  oper¬ 
ation,  especially  in  the  building  trades  and  in  manufacturing,  where 
the  work  is  laborious,  yet  the  general  application  of  the  shorter  work¬ 
ing  day  would,  according  to  actual  experience,  greatly  lessen  total 
production. 

2.  At  the  present  time,  when  the  Government  of  the  country  is 
calling  upon  manufacturers  to  increase  their  output  and  exports 
in  order  to  meet  heavy  national  obligations,  nothing  should  be  done 
which  would  tend  to  hinder  them  in  their  efforts. 

3.  Only  by  increased  production  can  the  cost  of  living  be  reduced 
to  all  classes.  To  ignore  this  fundamental  truth  is  to  blind  our  eyes 
to  actual  facts. 

4.  While  having  regard  to  world- wide  interests,  it  must  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  Canada  is  a  young  and  undeveloped  country.  To  at¬ 
tempt  to  put  her  upon  the  same  footing  as  old  world  countries  with 
entirely  different  conditions  is  like  placing  a  young  and  vigorous 
giant  on  the  same  footing  as  a  man  advanced  in  life. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  It  is  he  who  is  the  vigorous  giant, 
not  we. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  We  should  have  the  opportunity  ot 
living  our  own  life  and  managing  our  own  affairs  to  suit  our  cir¬ 
cumstances.  If  we  can  achieve  more  than  others  as  a  nation  it  is 
surely  not  only  our  privilege  but  out  duty  to  do  so.  Why  should 
our  national  life  and  development  be  dwarfed.  An  ancient  phi¬ 
losopher  has  well  said,  “That  which  is  not  good  for  the  beehive  can 
not  be  good  tor  the  bee.”  Compulsory  reduction  of  hours  militates 
against  the  establishment  of  new  and  small  industries,  and,  if  the  work 
man  is  to  be  hampered  in  his  effort  to  rise,  a  serious  blow  is  struck  at 
the  national  life  of  a  young  and  rapidly  developing  country. 

5.  An  attempt  was  made  in  the  eight-hour  day  committee  of  this 
conference  to  include  in  the  draft  convention  all  purely  commercial 
undertakings,  such  as  wholesale  and  retail  stores,  banks,  etc.  This 
proposition  did  not  carry  a  majority  in  favor  of  it  but  will  be  con¬ 
sidered  again  at  a  later  conference.  It  has  also  been  announced  that 
agriculture  has  been  included  in  the  program  of  some  countries 
proposing  to  come  under  this  legislation.  Evidently  what  is  aimed 
at  ultimately  is  an  attempt  to  drive  all  the  workers  of  the  world 
like  a  flock  of  sheep  into  the  eight-hour  pen,  regardless  of  the  world’s 
requirements.  It  is  not  suggested  for  a  moment  that  the  general  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  the  eight-hour  day  will  settle  now  or  permanently  our 
social  and  industrial  problems,  including  hours  of  work. 

6.  Under  the  proposed  legislation  Governments  will  be  called  upon 
to  deal  with  economic  questions  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  ever 
befpre.  It  is  quite  conceivable  that  influences  are  likely  to  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  politicians  from  one  direction  or  another  in 
connection  with  such  legislation  and  the  administration  thereof 
which  would  not  make  for  national  soundness  or  prosperity.  There 
is  much  truth  in  the  statement  “that  government  is  best  which 
governs  least.” 

7.  Employers  of  Canada,  representing  all  employing  classes,  at  a 
national  industrial  conference  in  the  city  of  Ottawa  in  September 
last,  considered  this  question  and  agreed  unanimously  to  a  resolu¬ 
tion  calling  upon  the  Government  to  appoint  a  commission  on 
which  employers  and  employees  should  be  represented  to  study 
the  possible  application  of  the  eight-hour  day  to  all  branches  of 
industry.  If  it  can  be  demonstrated  after  such  study  that  the 
eight-hour  day  is  sound  economically,  as  applied  to  Canada,  and  in 
the  interest  of  all  classes,  including  the  workers,  I  feel  safe  in  saying 
that  the  manufacturers — and  I  believe  also  the  employers  gen¬ 
erally — will  be  glad  to  cooperate  in  bringing  it  into  being.  Mean¬ 
time  I  have  no  option  but  to  oppose  the  legislation  as  per  draft 
convention  before  this  conference. 

8.  It  is  generally  recognized  that,  unless  the  United  States  accepts 
similar  legislation,  it  would  be  placing  an  unfair  burden  upon 
Canadian  employers,  and  the  country  at  large,  to  be  bound  by  the 
terms  of  the  proposed  convention. 


Mr.  President,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  through  a  misunderstanding 
I  was  not  present  at  the  session  of  the  committee  of  15  which  consid¬ 
ered  this  proposal  and  finally  passed  the  draft,  I  think  such  a  statement 
is  opportune  and  should  now  be  put  on  the  records  of  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barnes,  of  Great  Britain,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  want  to 
make  a  speech,  but  rise  in  order  to  make  an  earnest  appeal  to 
the  meeting  not  to  reenter  that  region  which  I  thought  we  had 
left  for  good  when  we  remitted  this  matter  to  a  committee.  I  sin¬ 
cerely  regret  that  Mr.  Parsons  has  found  it  necessary  to  begin  a 
discussion — which  I  hope  we  shall  not  continue — upon  the  advisa¬ 
bility  or  otherwise  of  an  8-hour  day  or  a  48-hour  week.  Might  I 
remind  Mr.  Parsons  that  all  the  signatories  to  the  peace  treaty  have 
pledged  themselves  to  certain  things.  If  you  will  look  at  chapter  13 
of  the  peace  treaty  you  will  find  nine  general  principles  laid  down, 
and  one  of  those  nine  general  principles  is  that  an  8-hour  day  and  a 
48-hour  week  should  be  adopted  by  all  the  signatory  countries  in 
so  far  as  it  had  not  then  been  adopted.  Therefore,  I  submit,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  we  have  met  together  here  more  or  less  pledged  to 
take  what  practical  steps  we  can  toward  the  application  of  that 
principle. 

Might  I  remind  you  of  what  we  did  when  we  first  considered  the 
eight-hour  principle  on  this  floor?  We  discussed  it  for  a  week ;  we  had 
these  arguments  about  an  eight-hour  day  not  being  applicable  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  war’s  ravages;  we  had  all  the  arguments  in  regard  to 
the  relative  position  of  Canada  as  compared  with  the  United  States; 
and  after  hearing  all  those  arguments,  we  remitted  the  whole  ques¬ 
tion  to  a  commission  to  draw  up  a  draft — not  to  consider  the  applica¬ 
bility  of  an  eight-hour  day  in  Canada  or  anywhere  else,  but  to  draw 
up  a  draft — applying  in  a  practical  way,  so  far  as  that  commission 
could  so  apply  it,  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  so  far  as  I  can  see  the  position,  we  have  that 
draft  submitted  to  us.  The  way  we  can  best  use  our  time,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  to  discuss  the  terms  of  the  draft.  If  there  are  any  delegates 
who  disagree  with  any  particular  provision  inserted  in  that  draft,  it 
would  be  best  rather  to  discuss  that  practical  objection  than  to  go 
back  to  these  general  principles  which,  I  suggest,  were  worn  thread¬ 
bare  during  the  week’s  discussion  we  had  before. 

I  do  not  overlook  the  fact  that  Mr.  Parsons  in  Canada  may  be  in  a 
peculiar  position.  I  am  not  saying  whether  that  is  so  or  not,  but 
may  I  remind  Mr.  Parsons  that  we  are  not  now  discussing  imposing 
upon  Canada  this  draft  of  an  eight-hour  day.  We  have  simply 
examined  the  question  of  an  eight-hour  day  in  all  its  practical 
aspects  and  have  drawn  up  a  draft  convention  embodying,  as  we 
think,  the  largest  possible  amount  of  agreement  and  what  is  likely 
to  be  accepted  by  all  the  nations;  but  even  after  we  have  discussed  it 
and  possibly  amended  it — and  here  may  I  say  that  Mr.  Parsons  is 
somewhat  premature,  because  it  might  be  amended  in  the  direction 
that  he  desires — but  even  after  we  have  discussed  it  it  is  still  open, 
by  the  terms  of  the  peace  treaty,  for  Canada  or  any  other  country 
here  represented  to  reject  it.  All  that  they  are  in  honor  bound  to 
do  is  to  put  it  to  their  competent  authority  and  that  competent 
authority  is  quite  free,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  peace  treaty — 
and  we  can  not  take  that  right  away  from  them — to  reject  the  whole 
thing  if  it  thinks  proper. 

Therefore,  I  would  suggest  that,  instead  of  discussing  the  general 
principle,  we  now  proceed  to  discuss  the  draft  submitted  to  us; 
after  that,  if  any  delegate  is  not  satisfied  with  the  condition  in  which 
it  emerges  it  will  be  his  right,  and  I  suppose  his  duty,  to  advise  the 
competent  authority,  after  he  gets  home,  to  exercise  the  rights 
reserved. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  desires  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  conference  to  the  fact  that  on  November  10  the  conference,  by  a 
vote  of  64  to  19,  closed  the  general  debate  on  the  eight-hour  question. 
It  is'the  Chair’s  opinion  that  the  procedure  now  would  be  to  take  up 
the  consideration  of  the  proposed  draft,  clause  by  clause,  for  purposes 
of  amendment. 

Without  objection,  clause  1  is  before  the  conference  for  considera¬ 
tion  and  amendment.  Mr.  H  .  Warington  Smyth,  of  South  Africa. 


116 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Mr.  SMYTH  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  want  to  suggest 
that  in  subclause  ( d ),  line  4,  after  the  word  “sea,”  there  should  be 
inserted  the  words,  “and  on  inland  waterways.”  The  object  of  the 
amendment,  Mr.  President,  is  to  include  navigation  on  inland 
waterways  in  the  reference  to  the  special  commission  which  is  to  in¬ 
vestigate  the  application  of  the  eight-hour  principle  to  navigation  at 
sea.  I  make  this  suggestion,  sir,  for  the  reason  that  navigation  on 
inland  waterways  is  subject  to  the  same  limitations  and  conditions, 
technically,  as  is  navigation  at  sea.  Large  sections  of  the  popu¬ 
lation  of  England,  of  Norway  and  of  Sweden,  of  Holland,  and  of  the 
countries  of  Central  Europe  are  engaged  in  inland  navigation.  The 
same  fact  is  true  also  of  a  large  part  of  the  population  of  Asia.  In 
India,  China,  and  Siam,  to  mention  only  three  great  countries,  there 
is  a  vast  amount  of  river  navigation  being  carried  on  under  con¬ 
ditions  in  which  the  family  form  the  crew  of  the  vessel  in  which 
they  travel. 

The  same  is  also  true  of  Japan,  but  in  Japan  these  conditions 
prevail  in  regard  to  tidal  waters,  and  therefore  they  might  be  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  word  “sea”;  but  in  the  other  countries  of  which  I 
speak  a  large  amount  of  this  navigation  is  in  fresh  water,  and, 
although  not  strictly  and  always  limited  by  questions  of  tide,  is 
limited  by  questions  of  water  and  the  rise  and  fall  of  waters  due  to 
natural  causes.  Under  those  circumstances,  Mr.  President,  I  suggest 
that  navigation  of  inland  waterways  stands  in  the  same  place 
as  navigation  at  sea,  with  this  additional  fact,  that  in  most  cases,  in 
a  very  large  number  of  cases,  the  crews  do  not  consist  merely  of  paid 
hands  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  are  very  often  whole  families,  and 
that  the  strict  application  of  the  principle  of  8  hours  employment 
during  the  24  hours  to  people  traveling  and  navigating  their  vessels 
under  those  conditions  would  be  absurd. 

I  suggest,  sir,  therefore,  that  this  commission  should  have  the  duty 
of  going  into  this  question,  which  is  a  very  difficult  and  intricate 
one,  and  that  at  the  same  time  they  inquire  into  sea  navigation  they 
should  inquire  also  into  inland  navigation.  My  amendment  is  that 
after  the  word  “sea,”  in  line  4,  subparagraph  ( d ),  the  words  “and 
on  inland  waterways  ’  ’  should  be  inserted.  The  clause  will  then  read : 

The  provisions  relative  to  transport  by  sea  and  on  inland  waterways  shall  be 
determined  by  a  special  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  The  commission  examined  the  point 
raised  by  our  colleague,  and  were  of  the  opinion  that  labor  condi¬ 
tions  for  maritime  transport  alone  would  need  to  be  referred  to  a 
special  conference.  It  approved  the  eight-hour  principle  for  mari¬ 
time  transport,  and  referred  to  the  special  conference  provisions 
relative  to  the  enforcement  of  the  principle  The  commission  decided 
that  the  question  of  inland  navigation  should  not  be  referred  to  this 
special  conference. 

I  can  not  subscribe  to  the  statement  that  inland  navigation  in¬ 
volves  the  same  problems  as  maritime  navigation.  There  is  this 
essential  difference  between  maritime  ana  internal  navigation:  In 
maritime  navigation  the  sailor  embarks  for  many  days,  weeks, 
months,  on  a  boat  which  he  does  not  leave  and  which  he  cannot  leave. 
For  this  reason  the  majority  of  the  provisions  we  have  drawn  up  can 
not  be  applied  in  his  case,  or  can  be  applied  only  with  difficulty. 
A  fresh  study  of  the  question  should  therefore  be  made,  new  defini¬ 
tions  worked  out,  and  new  provisions  drawn  up.  The  circumstances 
are  not  the  same  in  inland  navigation.  Sailors  in  inland  navigation 
do  not  embark  on  long  vovages;  they  touch  land  every  day.  The 
problems  which  arise  with  respect  to  them  are  closely  analogous  to 
those  which  arise  in  the  case  of  railway  employees. 

We  have  included  in  our  draft  very  wide  and  exceedingly  elastic 
regulations.  If  they  are  closely  examined,  it  may  be  seen  that 
they  cover  the  case  of  inland  navigation.  Thus  I  consider  that 
inland  navigation  may,  without  any  inconvenience,  be  included 
in  the  terms  of  our  draft  if  we  take  into  account  the  conditions 
which  the  commission  ha- established  in  this  text,  conditions  provid¬ 
ing  for  agreement  between  employers  and  workers,  conditions  in 


which  provision  was  made  for  exceptions,  conditions  which  are  ex¬ 
ceedingly  elastic,  enabling  the  number  of  hours  of  daily  labor  to  be 
adjusted  with  due  regard  for  the  periods  of  travel  necessary  to  reach 
a  given  point. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  to  make  one  or 
two  observations  on  the  proposal  made  by  the  representative  of 
the  Government  of  South  Africa,  but  before  doing  so  I  hope  I  may 
have  the  permission  of  the  conference  to  say  a  word  or  two  as  to 
the  position  of  the  Government  of  Canada,  because  I  fear  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  Canada  may  be  misunderstood  because  of  the  remarks  Mr. 
Parsons  has  made. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Would  the  representative  from  Canada  just 
indulge  the  Chair  a  minute  before  he  proceeds,  in  order  that  a 
parliamentary  situation  may  be  straightened  out?  Mr.  Warington 
Smyth  has  moved  an  amendment.  Thus  far  there  has  been  no 
second  tq  the  amendment.  Is  it  the  desire  of  the  conference  that 
amendments  shall  be  considered  by  the  conference  when  proposed, 
whether  they  are  seconded  or  not? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  move  to  that  effect,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  I  move  that  a  second  must  be  had 
to  every  motion  or  amendment.  That  is  the  only  way,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man,  I  suggest,  that  we  can  prevent  a  man  with  a  bee  in  his  bonnet 
from  holding  up  the  whole  conference. 

Mr.  MOORE  (substitute  for  Mr.  Draper  of  Canada).  I  second  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Shaw  on  the  ground  that  if  there  are  not  sufficient 
people  favoring  to  find  one  who  is  willing  to  second  a  motion 
or  an  amendment,  the  time  of  the  conference  certainly  should  not 
be  taken  up  in  discussing  it.  So  I  second  Mr.  Shaw’s  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  and  seconded  that  mo¬ 
tions  and  amendments  shall  require  a  second  before  being  consid¬ 
ered  by  the  conference.  Are  you  ready  for  the  question?  As 
many  as  favor  that  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Is  the  motion  seconded,  Mr.  President? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  has  not  been  seconded. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  has  been  seconded  and  Mr. 
Rowell  is  recognized. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  I  desire  to  discuss  this  clause  from  the 
standpoint  of  one  who  will,  as  a  representative  of  the  Government 
of  Canada,  vote  for  the  convention. 

Mr.  Parsons  has  very  properly  presented  the  views  of  the  em¬ 
ployers,  but  in  the  last  analysis  the  Governments  in  the  different 
countries  concerned  must  determine  what  the  policy  of  the  country 
shall  be,  and  my  colleague  and  I,  representing  the  Government  of 
Canada,  intend  voting  for  this  convention. 

There  are,  however,  some  suggestions  which  we  may  wish  to  make 
in  reference  to  the  form  of  some  of  the  sections;  this  we  shall  do 
when  they  come  up  for  consideration.- 

I  wish  to  say  further,  Mr.  President,  that  while  we  appreciate  the 
difficulties — and  this  section  raises  some  of  them — of  the  United 
States  possibly  adopting  one  policy  and  Canada  adopting  another  in 
reference  to  this  convention,  I  desire  to  make  our  position  clear — 
that  the  action  of  the  Government  of  Canada  in  dealing  with  these 
matters  does  not  depend  on  the  action  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  It  has  not  in  the  past.  It  will  notin  the  future.  It 
will  be  a  consideration,  undoubtedly,  which  any  Government  must 
take  into  account. 

The  Parliament  of  Canada  has  already  approved  the  treaty  con¬ 
taining  the  labor  clauses  and  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
We  believe  the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  the  labor 
clauses  constitute  two  of  the  most  important  and  vital  features  of 
the  whole  treaty.  The  Parliament  of  Canada  having  approved  of 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


117 


the  League  of  Nations  and  the  labor  clauses,  the  Government  of 
Canada  will  carry  out,  in  spirit  as  well  as  in  letter,  the  obligations 
it  has  assumed  under  the  treaty.  I  desire  to  make  that  position 
clear,  because  I  notice  in  the  press  of  this  city  and  elsewhere  that  it 
has  been  assumed  that  Canada  would  not  take  any  action  unless 
the  United  States  took  action  also. 

Having  made  our  position  clear,  I  desire  to  turn  to  the  section  of 
the  convention  under  consideration;  and  might  I  suggest  to  the 
chairman  of  the  commission  and  to  the  president  that  we  would 
make  greater  progress  if  we  took  up  the  section  clause  by  clause, 
because  there  may  be  suggestions  or  amendments  to  the  different 
subclauses,  and  it  would  only  be  confusing  to  deal  with  them  in 
irregular  order.  When  this  amendment  is  disposed  of,  I  desire. to 
offer  a  suggestion  as  to  the  form  of  one  of  the  clauses  appearing  earlier 
in  the  article  than  the  one  suggested  by  Mr.  Smyth,  although  it 
relates  to  the  same  matter. 

I  should  like  to  point  out  to  the  reporter  of  the  commission  that 
while  what  he  has  said  is  undoubtedly  true  of  France  and  certain 
continental  countries,  his  references  to  inland  navigation  would 
have  no  application  to  the  conditions  prevailing  in  Canada  or  those 
prevailing  in  the  United  States.  I  am  now  referring  to  the  great 
waterway — -that  is,  the  St.  Lawrence  River  and  the  Great  Lakes — 
which  forms  in  part  the  international  boundary  between  the  two 
countries.  The  reporter  of  the  commission  referred  to  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  the  sailors  getting  home  every  night.  Well,  I  believe  we 
have  a  navigable  waterway  from  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
River  to  Fort  William  of  not  less  than  2,000  miles  in  length.  While 
the  existing  canals  do  not  permit  of  ocean  navigation  right  up  to 
the  head  of  the  Great  Lakes,  it  is  contemplated  that  those  canals 
should  be  so  deepened  as  to  make  possible  ocean  navigation  up  to 
the  heaa  of  the  Great  Lakes  in  the  interior  of  Canada.  When  that 
is  done  we  will  have  ocean-going  vessels  sailing  2,000  miles  inland 
from  the  seacoast  to  the  heart  of  the  country. 

What  applies  to  Canada  applies  equally  to  the  United  States, 
because  these  Great  Lakes  constitute  part  of  our  international 
boundary.  We  have  in  some  of  our  Great  Lakes  bodies  of  water  (and 
I  stay  this  without  boasting)  in  which  you  could  put  whole  European 
countries  and  still  have  considerable  room  for  navigating  around  their 
shores.  These  are  great  bodies  of  water,  and  I  say  with  all  respect 
that  the  conditions  which  prevail  in  the  canals  and  in  the  navigation 
of  the  canals  in  the  older  and  better  settled  portions  of  Europe  have 
no  application  to  conditions  of  navigation  on  our  great  inland  water¬ 
ways.  Therefore,  I  support  the  amendment  that  the  question  of 
inland  navigation  should  be  considered  at  the  same  time  sea  naviga¬ 
tion  is  considered.  I  submit  that  the  question  of  the  position  of  the 
seamen  navigating  the  great  inland  waters  of  this  continent — the 
lakes  and  rivers — should  be  investigated  and  considered  along  with 
the  position  of  those  engaged  in  ocean  transportation  by  the  special 
conference  which  it  is  suggested  should  consider  the  matter.  I  urge 
this  for  the  further  reason,  Mr.  President,  that  when  the  agenda  was 
submitted  to  the  different  Governments  concerned,  it  was  expressly 
intimated  in  some  of  the  communications  received  that  the  questions 
of  seamen  and  navigation  would  be  dealt  with  by  a  special  con¬ 
ference.  We  have  not  come  prepared  to  pass  on  this  question  at  this 
conference.  We  do  not  believe  it  properly  came  before  this  confer¬ 
ence  for  consideration.  I  hope  the  conference  will  see  the  force  of  the 
considerations  I  have  urged  and  will  meet  the  condition  as  it  ex¬ 
ists  in  Canada  and  other  countries.  I  assume  it  exists  in  South 
Africa.  My  friend,  Mr.  Warington-Smyth,  has  referred  to  it  there. 

I  know  it  exists  in  the  United  States  and  Canada,  and  therefore  this 
clause  should  be  amended  so  as  to  make  clear  that  the  whole  ques¬ 
tion  will  be  deferred  to  the  future  when  a  conference  or  commis¬ 
sion  is  called  upon  to  consider  the  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  von  Koch,  of  Sweden,  is  recognized. 

Senator  VON  KOCH  (Sweden).  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to  support 
the  amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  from  South  Africa,  but  before  doing 
this  I  want  to  say  just  a  few  words,  with  your  permission,  about  the 
committee’s  report  in  general.  It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I 


express  herewith,  on  behalf  of  the  Swedish  Government  delegates, 
the  satisfaction  we  feel  in  seeing  that  the  committee  succeeded,  in 
principle  at  least,  in  reaching  an  agreement  with  regard  to  the  eight- 
hour  day.  Never  before  has  a  social  question  of  such  importance 
and  so  difficult  to  solve  been  presented  for  universal  solution.  When, 
nevertheless,  the  committee  has  on  the  whole  attained  such  con¬ 
crete  results,  this  gives  evidence  of  an  honest  and  keen  desire  for 
reform.  It  appears  to  me,  Mr.  President,  that  this  is  an  indication 
of  good  future  results  within  the  labor  organization. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  can  not  refrain  from  calling  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  proposal  of  the  committee  is  apt  to  create  serious  doubts 
in  some  respects.  This  does  not  apply  to  the  most  vital  of  the  ques¬ 
tions,  namely,  the  regulation  of  the  time  of  work  per  day  or  per  week, 
where  the  committee  has  reached  results  closely  resembling  the 
present  Swedish  law,  which  law  I  had  an  opportunity  to  recommend 
during  the  preliminary  general  debate  on  this  question.  On  the 
very  important  question  of  the  scope  of  the  law,  the  committee 
seems  to  have  reached  a  somewhat  more  satisfactory  solution  than 
the  proposal  made  by  the  organizing  committee.  Nevertheless,  sev¬ 
eral  difficulties  still  appear,  especially  for  those  countries  which,  like 
Sweden,  already  have  a  law  of  this  kind.  Of  these  difficulties  I 
desire  at  the  present  moment  to  emphasize  the  proposal  that  the 
question  of  seamen  and  navigation  be  included  in  the  convention. 

Purely  from  the  point  of  view  of  principle,  I  wish  to  state  that  the 
question  of  regulating  the  time  of  work  at  sea  has  not  been  dealt  with 
by  the  organizing  committee  or  been  the  subject  of  preparatory 
investigation;  that  it  was  not  included  in  the  agenda  of  the  confer¬ 
ence.  The  majority  of  the  delegates  from  the  countries  here  repre¬ 
sented  do  not  have  special  experts  who  can  deal  with  the  subject. 
This  circumstance  speaks  very  strongly  against  taking,  at  this  time, 
a  definite  stand  in  a  matter  where  so  much  is  involved.  It  should 
also  be  remembered  that  the  majority  of  the  countries  which  have 
already  regulated  the  time  of  work  in  industries  have  not  up  to  this 
time  enacted  similar  navigation  laws.  In  Sweden,  however,  we 
dealt  with  the  question  of  navigation  and  work  within  industries 
at  the  same  time,  but  this  was  done  by  the  enactment  of  two  separate 
laws  (  onditions  show  clearly  that  industries  and  navigation  are 
of  sucn  a  different  nature  that  an  effective,  and  at  the  same  time 
practical,  solution  for  both  could  not  be  had  along  the  same  lines. 
This  was  unanimously  agreed  upon  by  representatives  in  the  dif¬ 
ferent  committees  while  the  question  was  up  for  debate  in  Parlia¬ 
ment.  It  was  found  necessary  to  make  special  provisions  for  inland 
navigation  and  coastwise  traffic  with  regard  to  the  time  of  work  in 
these  occupations  in  the  enactment  of  the  Swedish  law  dealing  with 
seamen  and  navigation,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  inland  nav¬ 
igation  and  coastwise  traffic  are  extremely  important  in  Sweden, 
and  as  you  have  heard  now  also  in  other  countries.  I  don’t  think 
it  would  be  wise  to  ignore  the  experience  gained  by  us  while  en¬ 
deavoring  to  plan  in  a  satisfactory  way  the  working  time  on  sea  as 
compared  with  the  working  time  in  the  industries.  It  also  seems  as 
if  the  committee’s  proposal  with  regard  to  this  question  is  not  quite 
clear. 

For  instance,  should  this  law  apply  to  the  large  number  of  small 
vessels  which  in  Sweden  and  many  other  countries  ply  regularly 
on  the  canals  and  along  the  coasts?  Is  traffic  on  waters,  partly  or 
wholly  protected  by  islands,  to  be  considered  as  sea  or  inland  navi¬ 
gation?  And,  further,  will  the  rules  and  regulations  drawn  up  by 
the  committee  with  regard  to  navigation  and  referring  to  industrial 
undertakings  be  binding  as  a  convention  for  transport  by  sea? 

Is  it,  Mr.  President,  I  ask,  the  intention  of  the  committee  that 
fishing  boats,  as  long  as  the  crew  does  not  consist  of  members  of  one 
family  only,  should  come  under  the  regulations  governing  industrial 
transportation  because  these  boats  carry  fishing  equipment  and  fish? 

In  this  latter  connection  I  beg  to  point  out  that  we  have  on  the 
coast  as  well  as  on  rivers  and  large  lakes  many  thousands  of  small 
fishing  vessels  not  driven  by  power  the  crews  of  which  consist 
of  persons  from  different  families.  It  very  often  happens  that  one 
fisherman  has  a  person  in  his  employ  or  that  two  fishermen  own 


118 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


together  a  boat  and  fishing  paraphernalia  and  ply  their  trade  together. 
In  the  latter  case  both  of  these  men  would  in  fact  be  employers  and, 
as  they  do  not  belong  to  the  same  family,  their  work  would  come 
under  the  rules  of  the  convention  governing  definite  industrial 
undertakings. 

The  regulation  of  the  time  of  work  would  thus  be  applied  to  the 
greater  part  of  these  vessels  not  driven  by  power,  whether  the 
fisherman  employed  help,  or  plied  his  trade  together  with,  another 
fisherman.  These  fishermen,  as  a  rule,  go  out  at  night,  putout  their 
nets  and  other  paraphernalia,  then  watch  them  all  night  and  take 
them  in  in  the  morning.  This  alone  keeps  the  fisherman  occupied 
more  than  eight  hours,  and  still  to  this  must  be  added  the  time  re¬ 
quired  to  take  care  of  the  fishing  equipment  and  put  the  fishing  mate¬ 
rial  in  order.  I  think  it  is  unnecessary  to  explain  in  further  detail 
how  difficult  it  would  be  to  apply  the  proposed  law  to  these  branches 
of  navigation,  or  to  supervise  the  enforcement  of  such  a  law. 

Furthermore,  I  want  to  call  your  attention,  in  a  few  words,  to  the 
many  small  vessels  that  are  used  in  regular  inland  navigation.  The 
proposed  rules  would  necessitate  an  extensive  increase  in  the  crew, 
and,  in  connection  with  this,  extensive  alteration  in  the  interior 
of  the  vessels,  so  as  to  accommodate  the  larger  crew.  There  is,  I 
think,  the  further  difficulty  of  having  these  alterations  finished  by 
July  1,  1921,  which  is  the  date  the  convention  should  go  into  effect. 

I  confine  myself  to  these  remarks  with  regard  to  the  proposal  to 
include  navigation  in  the  convention  to  limit  the  hours  of  work.  It 
seems  clear  to  me  that  inland  navigation  has  much  more  intimate 
connection  with  other  navigation  than  with  industries.  When  it  is 
now  decided  to  take  up  the  question  of  the  time  of  work  at  sea  in 
a  special  conference,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  natural  to  decide 
in  that  conference  also  the  question  of  inland  navigation. 

In  accordance  with  this  point  of  view,  the  Swedish  Government 
delegates  and  one  of  the  Finnish  Government  delegates  have  worked 
out  an  amendment.  We  did  it  because  we  thought  it  essential  that 
all  decisions  at  this  conference  should  be  of  such  a  character  as  to 
convey  universal  approval  and  be  enforced  everywhere,  but,  since 
Mr.  Smyth  has  moved  an  amendment  somewhat  in  the  same  direction, 
I  beg  to  state  now  that  we  shall  support  Mr.  Smyth’s  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  further  discussion  of  the  amend¬ 
ment? 

Mr.  Shaw  is  recognized. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  I  want  to  ask  Mr.  Warington  Smyth 
to  withdraw  his  amendment,  because  I  do  not  think  it  is  at  all 
necessary.  If  he  is  of  the  opinion  that  a  48-hour  week  ought  to 
be  the  lot  of  seamen,  whether  inland  or  ocean  going,  then  there  are 
clauses  in  the  convention  that  will  quite  clearly  meet  all  he  wishes. 
But  may  I  respectfully  point  out  to  him  that  the  countries  he  men. 
tioned  specially  as  examples — India,  China,  and  Japan — are  not 
dealt  with  at  all  in  the  present  convention,  but  form  the  subject  of 
a  special  commission. 

If  there  be  trade  of  any  kind,  whether  inland  waterway  or  other, 
which  by  its  very  nature  does  not  permit  of  the  rigid  application  of 
an  eight-hour  day,  that  trade  can  be  dealt  with  under  these  clauses 
and  arrangements  made,  provided  everybody  understands  that  48 
hours  a  week  over  a  period  is  the  idea.  And  if  it  be  taken  for  granted 
that  what  is  wanted  is  elasticity  so  that  these  trades  can  work  a 
greater  number  of  hours  per  day  or  per  week,,  on  the  understanding 
that  48  is  the  average,  then  clause  5  gives  everything  Mr.  Warington 
Smyth  desires.  It  gives  the  power,  in  exceptional  cases  where  it 
is  recognized  that  the  provisions  of  article  2  can  not  apply,  for  agree¬ 
ments  to  be  made  with  the  sanction  of  the  Government,  providing 
that  over  a  space  of  time  determined  by  the  agreements  48  shall 
be  the  av  erage  number  of  hours  per  week.  So  that  if  what  Mr. 
Warington  Smyth  desires  is  simply  an  arrangement  of  the  hours 
to  meet  special  circumstances,  clause  5  gives  it  to  him.  But 
if  he  means  that  these  men  ought  to  work  longer  on  the 
average  than  48  hours,  then  clause  5  does  not  give  it  to  him.  That 
is  the  difference  that  may  exist  between  his  point  of  view  and  mine. 

There  are  a  number  of  different  types  of  inland  waterways.  There 


is  the  inland  sea  spoken  of  by  the  Canadian  delegate.  But  clause  5 
provides  for  that.  But  if  the  Canadians  desire  to  apply  the  clauses 
of  a  special  convention  arranged  by  men  definitely  dealing  with 
maritime  law,  then  I  do  not  think  anybody  would  object  to  apply¬ 
ing  conditions  which  are  likely  to  be  better  on  the  whole  than  the 
conditions  laid  down  in  this  convention.  But  I  do  appeal  for  a 
clear  declaration  from  the  mover  of  the  amendment  as  to  whether 
or  not  he  means  more  than  48  hours,  for  the  inland  waterway  people. 
If  he  means  no  more  than  48  hours,  clause  5  will  cover  it.  If  he 
means  more,  then  I  must  vote  in  favor  of  the  clause  as  it  stands 
and  in  favor  of  the  48  hours  per  week. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Judge  Castberg,  of  Norway. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  only  a  few  words 
about  this  clause  ( d ),  to  which  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Smyth  is  pro¬ 
posed.  First,  I  wish  to  say  that  perhaps  the  clause  is  somewhat 
vague;  but  I  do  not  understand  it  to  mean  that  fisheries,  and 
especially  those  small  fishing  boats,  which  are  mentioned  here,  are 
included.  It  can  not  be  said  that  transport  of  passengers  or  goods 
by  road  or  rail,  sea  or  inland  waterways,  includes  fishing  boats.  I 
think  I  am  right  in  that.  I  will  say,  Mr.  President,  that  this  ques¬ 
tion,  raised  by  the  committee  when  altering  the  words  of  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee’s  proposal  on  this  point,  is  a  very  important  ques¬ 
tion,  especially  to  the  country  which  I  am  representing  here. 
Norway  has  between  2,000,000  and  3,000,000  tons  of  shipping.  It 
had  that  before  the  war,  and  was  the  third  or  fourth  country  among 
seafaring  nations  of  the  world.  And  it  is  very  important  to  us  that 
this  matter,  this  addition  of  “sea  or  inland  waterways,”  has  been 
taken  up  by  the  committee  and  put  into  the  draft  convention.  It  is 
not  for  that  reason  that  I  personally — and  I  do  not  think  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  Norway — am  against  the  principle  being  adopted  also  for 
seamen,  but  it  has  not  been  considered  and  discussed  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment  because  the  material  that  was  given  by  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  and  the  draft  convention  that  was  drawn  up  by  the  organizing 
committee  had  not  these  words  “sea  or  inland  waterways”  in  its 
proposal.  The  Government  is  not  against  the  principle  of  48  hours 
a  week.  We  have  only  recently  passed  a  law  for  48  hours  a  week 
in  industry,  but  also  in  a  very  new  law  for  seamen,  we  have  taken  the 
same  line  for  the  engine-room  crew  and  for  seamen  when  the  ship  is 
in  harbor.  But  for  the  crew  it  is  stated  in  the  law  that  the  customary 
arrangement  shall  continue.  This  very  important  question  must,  I 
think,  be  first  discussed  by  the  Government  before  the  Government 
delegates  from  Norway  can  take  any  final  position  as  to  the  area  in 
which  it  should  be  carried  on.  Mr.  President,  the  intention  of 
my  remarks  here  is  to  say  first  that  it  perhaps  was  the  most  natural 
and  convenient  thing  to  lay  the  whole  of  this  question  before  that 
special  conference  that  is  proposed  to  be  called  latter  on.  But  in 
any  case  I  must  make  a  reservation  on  behalf  of  my  Government  that 
they  have  an  opportunity  to  take  into  consideration  this,  as  I  may 
say,  new  question  when  we  look  on  the  proposal  of  the  organizing 
committee.  I  will  not  vote  against  this  proposal,  but  all  questions 
as  to  the  practical  application  of  this  principle  shall  be  left  to  a  dis¬ 
cussion  of  that  special  conference  which  is  proposed  by  the 
committee.  This  reservation,  Mr.  President,  is  not  directed  in  any 
way  against  the  principle  of  the  48-hour  week  or  8-hour  day,  but  is 
a  necessary,  formal  recommendation  on  behalf  of  my  Government. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  delegate  from  Finland,  Mr.  Saasta- 
moinen. 

Mr.  SAASTAMOINEN  (Finland).  Mr.  President,  many  speakers 
have  already  called  the  attention  of  the  conference  to  the  necessity 
of  placing  inland  navigation  in  the  same  category  as  general  naviga¬ 
tion,  with  regard  to  the  application  of  the  eight-hour  day. 

We  in  Finland  were  the  first  people  in  Europe  to  adopt  an  eight- 
hour  day.  We  have  applied  it  to  very  many  trades,  really  to  a 
greater  extent  than  has  been  proposed  here,  but  inland  navigation 
and  navigation  in  general  have  not  as  yet  been  included. 

The  delegate  from  Canada,  for  instance,  has  mentioned  the  fact 
that  conditions  prevailing  on  inland  lakes  in  Canada  are  such  that 
I  they  can  not  be  compared  to  river  navigation  in  central  Europe. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


119 


I  will  say  here  that  the  conditions  are  very  much  the  same  in  Fin¬ 
land  .  There  are  more  waterways  over  there  than  there  are  in  any  other 
country  in  the  world,  in  relation  to  area,  and  we  are  vitally  interested 
in  inland  navigation,  but  it  seems  to  us  very  difficult  to  arrange  that 
question  here  in  connection  with  the  general  application  of  the  eight- 
hour  day,  and  I  propose  that  in  that  respect  inland  navigation  be 
placed  in  the  same  category  as  general  navigation  by  water. 

Mr.  SMYTH  (South  Africa).  I  just  want  to  reply  in  a  few  words 
to  Mr.  Shaw.  I  agree  with  Mr.  Shaw  that  we  want  the  48-hour  week 
for  all  for  whom  we  can  obtain  it,  but  I  do  not  think  we  have 
sufficient  knowledge  in  this  case  to  go  right  ahead  and  decide  on  it 
for  the  inland  navigation.  That  is  why,  sir,  I  want  to  see  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  inland  navigation  referred  to  this  special  conference  which 
will  be  summoned  to  deal  with  maritime  matters. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  representative  from  the  Japanese  dele¬ 
gation  is  recognized. 

Mr.  OKA  (Japan).  On  behalf  of  the  Japanese  Government  dele¬ 
gation,  I  submit  our  desire  that  water  transport,  both  inland  and 
sea,  shall  be  treated  or  considered  by  the  special  international  con- 
erence.  We  hope  further  that  the  discussion  on  the  distinction  of 
treatment  of  the  two  shall  be  considered  similarly  by  the  same 
special  international  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  Warington  Smyth. 

As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  amendment  is  agreed  to. 

Is  there  any  further  amendment  to  paragraph  or  clause  1? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  In  the  preceding  clause,  that  is,  clause 
(c),  I  desire  to  make  a  suggestion  of  a  verbal  correction  which,  I 
think,  would  make  more  clear  what  I  assume  to  be  the  meaning  of 
it.  They  use  the  words  “inland  navigation.”  I  would  suggest 
that  they  substitute  the  word  “waterway”  for  the  word  “naviga¬ 
tion  ”  That  is,  in  the  third  line  reading — 

Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration,  or  demolition  oi 
any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier,  canal,  inland  navigation. 

Waterways  are  not  navigation.  They  do  not  repair  navigation. 
It  is  the  repair  and  construction  of  inland  waterways,  rather  than 
navigation.  I  will  move,  if  necessary,  to  substitute  “waterway” 
for  the  word  “navigation,”  in  the  third  line  of  clause  (c).  It  makes 
more  clear  the  meaning. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Fontaine  is  recognized. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Mr.  President,  we  beg  Mr.  Rowell’s 
pardon,  but  we  seem  to  have  no  luck  with  our  corrections.  Twice 
we  have  inserted  in  the  text  the  words  “installations  for  inland 
waterways,”  but  the  printer  seems  to  wish  otherwise.  Mr.  Rowell 
is  making  practically  the  same  request.  The  correct  French  text  is 
“installations  for  inland  waterways.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  the  correction  will  be 
made. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  have  one  other  sug¬ 
gestion,  and  that  is  in  reference  to  clause  (d).  Clause  (d),  as  sub¬ 
mitted  by  the  committee,  is  as  follows: 

The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  boat  or  rail,  sea  or  inland  waterways. 

Now,  it  is  true  that  we  have  amended  the  latter  part  of  this  clause 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Warington  Smyth,  but  I  submit  that,  to  be  con¬ 
sistent,  we  should  amend  the  first  part  as  well,  by  striking  out  the 
words  “sea  inland  waterways,”  and  my  reason,  Mr.  President, 
for  submitting  this  amendment,  in  addition  to  the  reasons  already 
urged,  is  that  in  the  report  submitted  by  the  organizing  commit¬ 
tee  this  question  was  expressly  withdrawn  from  consideration  as 
part  of  this  proposal. 

I  read  from  the  report  submitted  on  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour 
week,  on  page  4,  as  follows: 


Commerce,  agriculture,  and  sea  service,  and  other  nonindustrial  employments 
have,  therefore,  not  been  inquired  into  by  the  committee  or  dealt  with  in  its  report. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  special  proposals  with  reference  to  agriculture  and  the 
sea  service  were  made  by  the  labor  commission 

Then,  in  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee  submitted  to  the 
conference,  I  find  this  paragraph: 

To  the  same  order  belongs  a  proposal  which  the  present  chairman  has  been  asked 
by  the  French  Government  to  offer,  relating  to  the  holding  of  a  special  committee 
intrusted  with  the  study  of  employment  at  sea  and  the  enforcement  of  the  eight- 
hour  day. 

I  submit,  Mr.  President,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  this 
conference  in  its  deliberations  should  confine  itself  to  matters  cov¬ 
ered  by  the  agenda,  upon  which  the  representatives  of  the  Govern¬ 
ments  have  had  an  opportunity  to  inform  themselves  and  to  come 
to  the  conference  prepared  to  express  an  opinion. 

This  matter  was  expressly  withdrawn  from  the  consideration  of 
the  Governments  by  the  report  sent  out  to  the  Governments,  and 
as  a  Government  we  have  not  been  informed  on  that  particular 
matter. 

Therefore,  to  be  consistent  with  the  former  motion,  I  move  that 
those  words  be  stricken  out  from  the  first  part  of  that  clause. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  the  Chair  call  attention  to  the  rule  that 
amendments  should  be  offered  in  writing? 

Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Paragraph  ( d ),  in  the  words  “trans¬ 
port  by  road,  railway,  sea  or  inland  waterway”  simply  states  a 
general  principle,  as  far  as  maritime  or  inland  navigation  is  con¬ 
cerned,  application  of  which  is  left  entirely  to  a  special  conference, 
in  accordance  with  the  vote  you  have  just  taken.  This  application 
may  be  as  elastic  as  that  provided  for  in  articles  4  and  5,  the  question 
of  methods  and  the  necessary  exceptions  being  left  to  the  special 
conference. 

I  call  the  attention  of  our  colleagues  to  the  fact  that  the  text 
which  we  are  submitting,  conceived  on  a  wide  and  elastic  basis,  is 
the  result  of  an  agreement  which  has  been  negotiated,  and  that  if 
the  elements  of  the  agreement  are  successively  removed,  the  entire 
convention  will  disappear.  Inasmuch  as  the  omission  requested 
by  Mr.  Rowell,  with  regard  to  the  point  in  question,  really  has  no 
practical  interest,  since  all  details  of  adjustment  are  referred  to  a 
conference  of  specialists,  I  beg  Mr.  Rowell  not  to  compromise  the 
fate  of  our  convention  for  the  sake  of  mere  form. 

The  workers  beg  that  emphasis  be  laid  in  a  general  way  on  the 
8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week.  They  agree,  however,  to  such 
exceptions  as  are  necessary  for  the  normal  conduct  of  industry,  or 
are  necessary  to  prevent  industry  from  being  disorganized.  They 
agree  to  comprehensive  and  elastic  amendments.  I  beg  my  col¬ 
leagues  to  be  satisfied  with  our  text  after  the  explanations  which 
have  been  given,  and  not  to  risk  jeopardizing  the  whole  convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France),  I  do  not  believe  that  the  amendment 
which  we  voted  on  a  short  time  ago,  which  provides  for  a  special 
commission  or  conference  to  consider  the  question  of  enforcing  the 
8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  in  maritime  occupations  or  inland 
navigation,  can,  since  it  has  been  so  decided,  result  in  subversion  of 
the  principle  in  the  convention.  For  our  part,  the  facts  have  been 
set  forth  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  the  reporter  of  the  convention,  who  was 
present  at  all  the  discussions  and  who  knew  the  conditions  under 
which  negotiations  were  carried  on  in  order  to  agree  upon  the  text 
which  is  submitted  for  your  consideration.  We,  the  representatives 
of  the  workers’  organizations,  certainly  can  not  allow  further  con¬ 
cessions  in  the  present  text.  It  does  not  go  as  far  as  the  draft  drawn 
up  by  the  workers’  delegates,  and  the  latter  draft  was  itself  less 
comprehensive  than  existing  legislation  in  the  majority  of  countries. 
It  would  only  be  necessary  to  remove  from  the  present  convention 
certain  principles  stated  therein,  for  us,  the  workers’  delegates,  to 
declare  the  convention  ineffectual. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Nolens,  of  the  Netherlands. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands.)  Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  abuse 
your  patience,  but  I  think  it  would  be  well  to  repeat  once  more, 


120 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


inasmuch  as  I  am  not  bound  personally  by  negotiations  between 
employers  or  employees,  that  we  have  before  us,  as  Mr.  Fontaine  has 
remarked,  the  result  of  discussions  which  lasted  days  in  order  to 
attain  a  certain  object.  I,  for  my  part,  must  confess  frankly  and 
openly,  that,  during  these  discussions  in  these  committees,  it  was  the 
employees,  particularly,  who  made  concessions.  I  understand  their 
point  of  view  quite  well  when  they  refuse  to  accept  further  modifica¬ 
tions,  one  way  or  another,  in  the  text  we  have  before  us. 

Inasmuch  as  a  commission  of  15  members  was  appointed,  of  which 
5  were  employers,  5  employees,  and  5  Government  delegates,  and 
inasmuch  as  this  commission  spent  so  much  time  in  consideration 
of  this  question,  it  is  not  possible  to  go  back  now  to  every  stipulation 
contained  in  this  draft  convention.  It  is  not  possible,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  to  adapt  the  text  of  this  draft  convention  to  every  peculiar 
circumstance  in  each  individual  country. 

Several  Delegates.  Hear!  Hear! 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Even  in  our  country  it  would  not 
be  very  easy  to  enforce  this  principle  in  regard  to  inland  navigation 
at  the  present  time,  but  we  must  not  fall  behind,  we  must  advance 
by  enforcing  this  convention.  If  we  are  not  to  do  so,  then  I  fail  to  see 
the  necessity  or  even  the  utility  of  holding  such  conferences  as  this. 
That  is  why,  Mr.  President,  I  say  to  this  conference— and  it  is  a 
statement  that  I  will  uphold  on  any  occasion — that  we  must  not  give 
with  one  hand  and  take  back  with  the  other  in  this  draft  convention. 
I  am  not  protesting.  I  recognize  the  rights  of  all  the  members  of 
this  conference,  but  account  must  be  taken  of  the  fact  that  this  is 
a  compromise.  It  is  not  a  compromise  on  the  part  of  any  one  party; 
it  is  a  compromise  with  which  it  would  be  dangerous  to  meddle. 

Several  Delegates.  Hear!  Hear!  [Applause.] 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  May  I  be  permitted  to  answer  Mr. 
Fontaine - 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
motion  which  you  have  just  made  has  not  been  seconded,  and 
therefore  is  not  properly  before  the  house? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  It  was  seconded,  as  I  understood  it.  I 
think  it  was  seconded  before,  although  the  name  was  not  taken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  the  Chair  will  recognize  Mr.  Rowell. 

Mr.  ROWELL.  In  view  of  what  Mr.  Fontaine  has  said,  Mr. 
President,  I  do  not  feel  like  pressing  the  amendment  to  a  vote, 
because  I  do  not  wish  to  do  anything  that  would  endanger  this 
convention.  At  the  same  time  I  desire  respectfully  to  put  on  record 
the  opinion  that  neither  employers’,  employees’,  nor  Government 
representatives  on  any  commission  have  any  right  to  agree  to  include 
in  any  convention  matters  that  are  not  covered  by  the  agenda,  and 
that,  if  they  do  so  include  matters  in  conventions  that  are  not  covered 
by  the  agenda,  they  are  running  the  risk  of  imperiling  the  whole 
convention  when  it  comes  to  be  submitted  to  the  Governments  for 
action.  You  can  not  expect  the  Governments  to  approve  of  con¬ 
ventions  containing  clauses  relating  to  matters  which  have  not  been 
covered  by  the  agenda.  But  in  view  of  what  has  been  said  I  will 
not  press  the  motion  on  this  point  but  simply  put  on  record  my 
objection. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection  the  amendment  is  with¬ 
drawn.  Is  there  any  further  amendment  to  clause  1?  Mr.  Crawford, 
of  South  Africa. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  move 
an  amendment  of  which  I  gave  notice  some  considerable  time  ago, 
and  which  was  printed  in  the  record,  namely,  that  the  words  “other 
than  undertakings  in  which  only  members  of  the  family  are  em¬ 
ployed”  should  be  deleted.  I  think  there  is  a  very  vital  principle 
involved  here,  and  I  trust  some  member  of  the  conference  will 
second  it  and  allow  the  matter  to  have  some  little  discussion.  When 
that  is  translated  I  would  like  to  ask  for  a  seconder. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Crawford  moves  to  strike  out  the  words 
“other  than  undertakings  in  which  only  the  members  of  the  family 
are  employed,”  and  he  has  previously  given  notice  to  that  effect. 
Is  there  a  second  to  the  motion? 


Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Well,  we  are  waiting  for  someone  to 
second  the  motion.  Does  no  one  second  it? 

Mr.  SMYTH  (South  Africa).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Smyth  seconds  the  motion. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  When  the  commission  was 
appointed  to  deal  with  the  various  amendments,  I  was  given  an 
assurance  that  all  amendments,  including  those  emanating  from 
Government  delegates,  would  be  dealt  with.  Although  the  fact 
that  my  amendment  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  appendixes  would 
suggest  that  it  had  not  been  considered,  there  are  two  paragraphs  in 
the  preamble  which  would  suggest  that  the  fact  that  this  amend¬ 
ment  would  come  forward  had  caused  the  question  to  receive  some 
consideration.  These  two  clauses  appear  on  the  first  page  of  the 
provisional  record  of  the  15th  day,  of  Saturday — the  first  two  para¬ 
graphs  on  the  second  column. 

Evidently  the  reasons  given  by  the  commission  for  retaining  these 
words  in  this  particular  paragraph  are  set  out  as  follows: 

The  commission  did  not  consider  it  possible  to  regulate  the  length  of  the  day  in 
home  work.  The  majority  were  of  the  opinion  that  control  of  the  hours  of  home 
work  would  be  very  difficult,  even  with  frequent  inspection.  They  also  believe 
that  the  question  of  controlling  home  work  would  arouse  violent  opposition.  In  a 
word,  the  sentiment  of  the  majority  was  that  home  work,  which  certain  members 
of  the  commission  wished  to  restrict  as  much  as  possible,  owing  to  abuses  connected 
with  it,  should  be  made  the  subject  of  investigation  and  subsequent  recommendation 
by  the  International  Labor  Office. 

The  subsequent  paragraph,  which  I  will  not  read,  also  gives 
the  reasons  of  the  commission  for  not  deleting  those  particular 
words.  Now,  the  fact  that  the  commission  did  not  consider  it 
possible  to  regulate  the  length  of  the  day  in  home  work,  and  that 
there  would  be  difficulty,  even  with  frequent  inspection,  of  con¬ 
trolling  it,  seems  to  me  no  justification  for  including  these  words  in 
this  particular  convention. 

There  is  an  important  principle  involved,  and  that  principle  ought 
to  be  recognized.  The  fact  that  it  might  arouse  vital  opposition  is 
probably  one  good  reason  for  dealing  with  a  question  of  this  particular 
kind.  The  question  is  whether  the  onus  for  recognition  of  what 
after  all  is  an  encouragement  to  “sweating”  should  he  upon  this 
conference  or  upon  the  individual  country.  That  is  a  matter  that  is 
involved  in  this  discussion. 

The  convention  as  drafted  by  this  International  Labor  Conference 
should  be  treated  very  seriously  indeed.  Our  ideal  should  be  to  have 
conventions  that  are  practicable  universally  and  sound  in  principle. 

Mr.  Barnes  said  to-day,  in  order  to  meet  some  remarks  of  Mr. 
Parsons,  that  any  country  is  free  to  reject  the  whole  thing.  Now,  if 
we  take  that  view  of  it  we  would  be  inclined  to  include  in  these 
conventions  many  features  that  might  be  generally  objectionable, 
and  if  the  conventions  as  drafted  by  this  conference  are  not  gen¬ 
erally  accepted,  then  the  prestige  and  the  moral  power  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference  are  going  to  be  very  seriously  impaired. 
We  must  draft  conventions  that  will  win  the  respect  of  the  nations 
of  the  world  and  we  must  draft  conventions  that  will  be  applicable 
as  far  as  possible  to  the  nations  of  the  world.  I  say,  therefore,  that 
a  very  important  principle  is  involved. 

The  commission  says  that  this  question  should  be  made  the  subject 
of  investigation  and  subsequent  recommendation  by  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Office.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  to  encourage  an  evil — 
and  I  contend  that  the  inclusion  of  those  words  in  the  draft  conven¬ 
tion  will  encourage  sweating  and  will  set  up  and  encourage  that 
evil — and  then  to  suggest  that  our  machinery  should  be  set  in 
motion  to  lead  to  the  elimination  of  that  evil  is  paradoxical  and 
absurd. 

Why  give  this  evil,  which  it  is  recognized  leads  to  “conditions  which 
are  too  often  deplorable” — I  am  quoting  from  the  commission’s 
report — why  give  this  evil  any  impetus,  any  encouragement  at  all? 
If  these  words  are  allowed  to  remain  in  this  convention,  then  I  say 
that  as  far  as  my  country  is  concerned — and  I  know  it  must  be  the 
same  in  a  large  number  of  other  countries — the  sweating  evil  is 
going  to  get  a  considerable  impetus;  there  is  going  to  be  a  great  deaj 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


121 


of  sweating,  and  the  sweaters  will  have  good  reason  to  approve  the 
work  of  this  International  Labor  Conference. 

In  the  second  paragraph  the  statement  of  the  commission  appears 
rather  inconsistent  with  what  is  stated  in  the  first  paragraph.  It 
says: 

It  seems  necessary  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  only  workshops  to  escape  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  text  are  those  where  only  members  of  the  family  are  employed.  Where 
a  single  worker  not  belonging  to  the  family  is  employed,  the  workshop  would  come 
under  the  provisions  of  the  convention,  and  this  interpretation,  which  is  the  correct 
one,  of  a  very  clear  text  is  aimed  at  all  subcontractors  who  take  work  home  and  em¬ 
ploy  coworkers  and  assistants  who  work  with  them  under  conditions  which  are  too 
often  deplorable. 

The  commission  recognizes  that  “conditions  are  too  often  deplor¬ 
able,”  but  what  I  want  to  ask  them  is  this:  If  they  consider  that 
conditions  under  which  home  workers  carry  on  their  work  are  not 
capable  of  being  controlled,  even  by  frequent  inspections,  how  can 
they  control  home  work  if  one  single  worker  not  a  member  of  the 
family  is  employed  to  assist?  If  it  is  not  difficult  to  control  home 
work  where  one  nonmember  of  a  family  is  employed,  then  why 
should  it  be  difficult  to  control  home  work  where  no  nonmember  of 
the  family  is  employed?  It  seems  to  me  that  the  statement  of  the 
commission  is  very  contradictory. 

I  heard  with  interest  a  remark  made  by  a  previous  speaker,  Mr. 
Nolens,  when  he  said  that  the  workers’  delegates  have  granted  the 
most  concessions.  I  sincerely  trust  that  this  is  not  one  of  the  con¬ 
cessions  that  was  granted  by  the  workers’  delegates,  because  if  there 
is  any  class  of  worker  upon  whom  this  conference  should  concentrate 
more  attention  than  any  other  it  is  the  very  class  that  should 
be  affected  by  those  words — the  poor  and  the  unorganized  class 
of  workers.  If  these  words  remain  here,  this  is  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  to  be  given  to  the  work  of  this  conference.  It  will  be  sug¬ 
gested  that  in  attempting  to  meet  the  opposition  of  strongly 
organized  bodies  of  workers,  this  conference  is  pandering  to  them, 
is  conceding  to  them,  at  the  expense  of  the  poor,  at  the  expense  of 
the  very  class  that  is  not  able  to  help  itself.  I  sincerely  trust  that 
no  workers’  delegate  is  going  to  concede  anything  that  is  calculated 
not  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  poor  worker,  the  woman  worker,  the 
home  worker,  and  the  children,  the  sweated  workers.  It  was  sug¬ 
gested  to  me  when  I  first  brought  this  amendment  forward  that  in 
our  country  we  have  been  exterminating  home  work,  sweated  indus¬ 
try,  and  that  it  is  easy  for  our  country  to  delete  those  words  from  this 
convention.  I  say  that  is  not  satisfactory.  Rather  should  we  delete 
those  ourselves  and  let  the  country  that  wants  to  include  the  words 
put  them  in  for  themselves.  We  do  not  want  to  frame  conventions 
in  the  hope  that  certain  countries  will  accept  them  with  certain 
modifications.  In  a  vital  principle  of  this  kind,  we  have  got  to 
frame  conventions  in  the  hope  that  they  will  be  applicable  without 
any  change  to  every  country,  rather  than  suggest  that  the  countries 
that  won’t  stand  for  home  sweating  should  eliminate  these  words  from 
the  bill.  Rather  then  let  us  build  our  movement  on  a  sound  foun¬ 
dation  and  eliminate  the  words  and  let  the  responsibility  and  the 
onus  for  the  conclusion  of  any  convention  rest  with  the  particular 
countries  that  want  to  exclude  them,  and  my  country  won’t  be  one 
of  these  countries. 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  introducing  the  measure  some  days  ago,  said  that 
what  was  wanted  on  the  part  of  the  workers  was  leisure  rather  than 
pay.  If  this  convention  goes  with  these  words  included,  what  is  going 
to  be  the  effect?  The  effect  is  going  to  be  that  in  the  big  factory, 
with  big  production,  hours  are  going  to  be  shortened  considerably. 
The  workers,  the  women  and  young  people  and  children  who  work 
there,  who  are  over  a  certain  age,  are  going  to  have  more  leisure. 
What  are  they  going  to  do  with  their  leisure?  As  this  clause  stands 
at  the  present  time,  they  can  use  their  leisure  in  working  at  home; 
but  what  will  be  the  benefits  of  this  leisure,  if  they  are  going  to  get 
more  leisure,  if  they  are  going  to  get  more  time  away  from  the  factory, 
which  is  organized,  perhaps,  in  up-to-date  conditions  and  in  the  most 
hygienic  way,  if  they  get  away  from  that  factory,  with  strength  still 


remaining  in  them,  and  then  exhaust  their  strength  by  working  in 
unhealthful  abodes?  I  say  a  possibility  of  that  kind  should  not  exist . 

The  question  came  before  this  conference  as  to  the  desirability  of 
more  production,  and  Mr.  Jouhaux  pointed  out  that  more  production 
ought  to  be  gotten,  not  by  the  increase  of  hours  of  labor,  but  by  the 
better  organization  of  industry  and  the  substitution  of  the  real  motor 
for  the  human  motor.  I  want  to  suggest  that  if  these  words  remain 
there  you  are  going  to  increase  the  number  of  human  motors  and  you 
are  going  to  discourage  the  introduction  of  the  real  machine  motor. 

What  employer  is  going  to  use  his  money  building  a  big  hygienic 
factory,  installing  expensive  and  perhaps  experimental  machinery, 
when  he  can,  without  spending  any  money  and  capital,  give  out  the 
material  to  the  workers  to  take  home;  when  he  can  use  the  homes  of 
the  poor  for  his  factory;  when  he  can  use  their  sewing  machines,  and 
their  blood  and  sweat  for  his  motor  power;  when  he  can  make  them 
employ  their  little  all  in  capitalizing  his  business?  Why  should  he? 
There  will  be  no  encouragement  to  modern  methods  of  production; 
there  will  be  no  encouragement  for  the  improvement  of  machinery; 
there  will  be  no  encouragement  to  the  growth  of  healthy  modern 
industry  if  these  words  remain  in  this  particular  convention. 

Mr.  Barnes  also  said,  in  introducing  this  measure,  that  it  would 
include  the  son  in  a  small  family  in  a  business  that  might  be  strug¬ 
gling  into  existence,  and  yet  when  Mr.  Parsons  put  forward  the  same 
argument  against  the  whole  measure,  and  a  better  argument  at  that, 
what  was  the  view  of  the  convention  on  it?  The  argument  Mr. 
Parsons  put  up  was  this:  That  this  measure  wall  restrain  individual¬ 
ism;  that  it  will  prevent  that  individual  who  has  the  strength — not 
the  little  child,  not  the  woman,  but  the  man  who  has  the  energy  of 
mind  and  the  energy  of  body  to  apply  himself  industriously  perhaps 
16  or  18  hours  a  day — from  building  up  a  great  factory  or  producing 
concern.  He  pointed  out  that  this  convention  would  act  as  a  deter¬ 
rent  on  individualism  of  that  character.  And  yet  we  encourage  a 
measure  of  this  kind.  I  mean  the  individual  that  was  pictured  by 
Mr.  Parsons  is  an  individual  who  is  not  being  injured;  a  man  who, 
if  he  exercised  the  choice,  might  curtail  his  hours  of  work  and 
still  live  comfortably.  But  if  you  are  not  going  to  listen  to  Mr. 
Parsons’s  argument  and  for  the  reasons  he  put  forward  oppose  the 
hours  as  laid  down  in  this  measure,  then  certainly  you  should  listen 
to  my  views,  to  the  arguments  I  put  forward,  eliminate  these  words, 
and  give  some  protection  to  the  woman  and  the  child  and  to  the 
homeworker  that  otherwise  would  be  a  victim  and  a  prey  of  sweating 
institutions. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  would  call  the  attention  of  the  gentleman 
to  the  fact  that  his  time  has  expired. 

Any  further  discussion  of  the  amendment? 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  All  the  developments  which  have 
just  been  presented  by  the  author  of  the  amendment  have  already 
been  eloquently  presented  by  his  worker  colleagues.  The  com¬ 
mission  has  heard  them  and  would  have  liked  to  comply  with  them. 
It  did  not  comply,  however,  because  it  aid  not  consider  that  home 
workers  could  be  effectively  protected  by  limiting  family  work  but 
rather  by  regulating  salaries,  as  has  been  done  in  numerous  countries. 
The  suggestion  was  not  rejected,  however,  and  recommendation  was 
made  that  the  matter  should  be  taken  up  by  the  International  Labor 
Office  along  with  other  suitable  measures. 

I  have  nothing  to  add  to  my  report,  and  I  request  the  president  to 
be  good  enough  to  proceed  to  a  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  Crawford.  As  many  as  favor  the  amendment  will  raise 
their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted.  [Votes 
counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  to  the  amendment  raise  their  right  hands. 
[Votes  counted.] 

The  amendment  is  lost. 

Dr.  Justiz,  of  Cuba. 

Dr.  JUSTIZ  (Cuba).  Mr.  Chairman,  in  connection  with  this 
first  article,  which  enumerates  the  different  classes  of  industrial 


122 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


undertakings  and  leaves  it  to  the  competent  authority  in  each 
country  to  determine  the  line  of  demarcation  which  separates 
agriculture  from  industry,  may  I  be  permitted  to  say,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Cuba,  which  is  eminently  an  agricultural  country, 
that  agricultural  processes  do  not  end  with  the  gathering  of  the 
crop  when  the  nature  of  the  product  is  such  that,  in  order  to  pre¬ 
serve  it  or  prepare  it  for  its  final  conversion  into  the  manufactured 
article  of  commerce,  mechanical  processes  must  necessarily  be  per¬ 
formed  in  immediate  connection  with  the  harvesting.  Notably  is 
this  true  in  the  case  of  the  making  of  raw  sugar,  and  in  order  to 
avoid  misunderstanding  in  the  application  of  this  convention  to 
their  country,  the  delegates  of  Cuba  beg  to  state  to  the  confer¬ 
ence,  and  request  it  to  be  inserted  in  the  proceedings,  that  the 
limitation  of  hours  for  industrial  undertakings,  though  it  applies 
to  the  manufacture  of  white  sugar  in  the  refineries,  does  not,  how¬ 
ever,  apply,  in  their  view,  to  the  making  of  raw  sugar,  for  the 
reasons  which  they  have  explained  to  the  committees  on  hours  of 
work  and  on  special  countries  and  embodied  in  the  statement  in 
the  provisional  record  of  the  conference  for  the  thirteenth  day  of 
its  session,  November  19,  page  226. 

The  PRESIDENT.  M.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Before  we  vote  on  the  first  article  I 
desire  to  make  the  following  statement: 

In  voting  on  this  convention,  we  do  not  purpose  to  recede  in  any 
way  from  the  minimum  demands  formulated  in  our  counterdraft. 
We  are  voting  for  the  convention  because  it  sets  forth  for  the  first 
time  a  universal  principle  for  which  the  working  classes  of  all  coun¬ 
tries  have  been  fighting  for  years.  We  are  voting  for  the  convention 
because  for  the  first  time  an  international  convention  providing  for 
the  application  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  will  in  it¬ 
self  have  the  provisions  for  enforcement  necessary  to  render  effective 
the  application  of  this  principle.  We  shall  vote  for  the  convention 
because  it  is  the  first  manifestation  of  the  League  of  Nations  in 
working  out  international  labor  legislation.  But,  in  so  doing,  we 
intend  to  state  once  more  that  this  convention  will  have  to  be 
enlarged — extended  to  include  commerce — as  the  workers’  delegates 
have  unanimously  requested.  Moreover,  as  the  International  Labor 
Conference  is  going  to  convene  every  year,  we  hope  that,  after  sup¬ 
porting  here  in  Washington  the  application  of  this  principle  in  so  far 
as  industry  is  concerned,  we  shall  be  able  next  year  to  extend  its 
application  universally  to  all  workers  in  commercial  pursuits. 
Consequently  we  shall  make  real  progress,  we  shall  make  a  social 
advance  which  will  involve  other  advances.  It  is  for  all  these 
reasons  that  we  are  going  to  vote  for  this  convention,  although  at 
the  same  time  keeping  to  our  minimum  demands. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  no  further  amendments  are  proposed  to 
article  1  we  shall  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  article  2. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  May  I  ask  the  reporter  for  the  commis¬ 
sion  one  question?  Does  the  fishing  industry,  in  the  view  of  the 
commission,  come  under  the  provisions  of  this  article  as  an  in-- 
dustry?  I  would  not  suppose  that  it  did — that  is,  fishing  upon 
the  high  seas  or  upon  the  lakes  or  the  rivers.  It  is  rather  important 
that  one  should  know  what  the  view  of  the  commission  is;  that  is, 
as  to  whether  that  is  included. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  In  the  paragraph  under  discussion 
it  is  a  question  of  transport  by  sea  or  inland  waterway,  and  fishing 
is  not  specially  mentioned  in  the  draft  convention.  The  fishing 
industry  should  be  given  consideration  in  the  special  conference 
which  is  going  to  meet  next  year,  inasmuch  as  it  is  included  in  the 
work  of  sailors  and  boatmen.  The  provision  of  the  articles  which 
follow  are  not  applicable  to  fishing. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  That  answer  is  perfectly  satisfactory. 
That  is  how  I  would  interpret  the  clause.  May  I  ask  one  more 
question?  Does  the  reporter  of  the  commission  consider  that  this 
clause  would  cover  that  portion  of  the  lumber  industry  which  means 
the  working  of  wood,  cutting  down  of  trees  and  logging  in  the  woods, 
which  constitutes  a  very  important  class  of  employment  in  Canada 


and  some  other  countries?  I  would  like  to  know  whether  their  view 
is  that  it  is  covered  by  this  clause  or  not. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  It  is  exceedingly  difficult  for  the 
reporter,  who  is  ignorant  of  the  conditions  under  which  this  industry 
is  carried  on  in  Canada,  to  say  just  where  the  Canadian  Government 
should  fix  the  line  of  demarcation  between  industry  and  agriculture. 
Forests,  as  a  rule,  come  under  agriculture,  and  their  exploitation  is 
an  agricultural  enterprise.  There  is  a  point  where  forestry  becomes 
industrial.  If  a  window-frame  factory  is  established  in  a  forest,  it 
is  certainly  an  industrial  establishment.  If  the  trees  are  simply 
cut  up,  however,  it  is  an  agricultural  establishment.  It  is  for  the 
legislation  in  Canada  to  make  this  distinction,  with  the  spirit  of 
wisdom  and  fairness  which  we  recognize  as  characterizing  our  Cana¬ 
dian  colleagues. 

I  beg  leave  to  make  an  observation  about  the  text  relating  to 
sailors.  The  end  of  the  paragraph  on  transportation  should  also 
be  modified.  The  text  reads: 

Provisions  relative  to  transport  by  sea  and  inland  waterways  shall  be  determined 
by  a  special  conference  on  maritime  labor. 

The  words  “on  maritime  labor”  should  be  omitted,  and  the  text 
should  read  “on  the  work  of  sailors  and  boatmen.” 

[Mr.  Fontaine  remarked  to  the  interpreter  that  he  did  not  know 
how  to  translate  into  English  the  word  “mariniers”  because  in 
French  the  word  “mariniers”  applies  to  persons  working  on  inland 
waterways.] 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  “Watermen”  is  the  term  we  gen¬ 
erally  use. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection  we  shall  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  clause  2.  Mr.  Crawford. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  wish  to  move  the  addition 
of  certain  words  to  clause  2-b,  in  order  to  make  the  intention  of 
the  clause  more  clear.  I  wish  to  move  that  the  following  words  be 
added:  “Nor  shall  the  limit  of  48  hoors  in  a  week  be  exceeded.” 
I  would  like  to  give  a  little  explanation  before  asking  for  a  second. 
I  haven’t  much  to  say.  It  seems  to  me  possible  for  an  employer 
who  recognizes  a  7-hour  day  on  one  day  of  the  week  to  work  his 
employees  the  full  9  hours  on  the  other  days  of  the  week,  making 
it  possible  for  a  53-hour  week  to  be  worked  under  this  clause.  Now, 
the  intention  of  the  commission  is  quite  clear  in  the  preamble. 
It  makes  it  quite  clear  that  the  week  shall  not  be  one  of  more  than 
48  hours,  but  I  think  if  the  convention  is  adopted  in  any  particular 
country,  and  the  preamble  is  not  included,  then  legal  disputation 
is  likely  to  arise.  Another  reason  why  these  words  should  be  added 
is  this:  The  average  worker  in  reading  a  convention  of  this  kind 
should  have  no  doubts,  and  as  the  clause  stands  there  will  be  created 
in  the  mind  of  the  average  worker  doubts  and  fears  as  to  whether 
advantage  of  this  clause  could  be  taken  by  employers  to  lengthen 
the  working  week  beyond  48  hours.  I  therefore  wish  to  move, 
and  I  am  willing  to  accept  any  other  suggestion  of  the  commission, 
that  the  following  words  be  added:  “Nor  shall  the  limit  of  48  hours 
in  a  week  be  exceeded.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  hears  no  second.  Mr.  Baldesi  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy— remarks  in  Italian).  In  all  the  discussions 
of  the  convention  for  the  reduction  of  hours  the  question  of  reducing 
the  wages  at  the  same  time  has  not  been  mooted;  every  time  the 
question  has  been  debated  with  employers,  there  has  also  been  a 
question  of  reducing  wages. 

This  reduction  in  hours  of  work  must  be  an  advantage  at  the  same 
time  to  the  workers.  I  do  not  think  there  will  be  any  opposition 
to  my  proposal,  because  there  is  no  intention  to  interfere  with  any 
regulations  of  prices  established  in  any  country. 

Also  the  question  of  piecework  must  be  decided.  In  Italy  we 
have  settled  the  question  by  referring  it  to  a  commission  which 
regulates  the  wages  of  workers  according  to  the  work  done  by  the 
piece. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


123 


The  conference  must  pay  great  attention  to  the  proposition  or 
the  motion  which  I  am  going  to  offer,  because  if  it  were  possible  for 
the  workers  of  the  world  to  see  in  this  reduction  of  hours  a  ques¬ 
tion  which  would  be  disadvantageous  to  them  it  would  certainly  go 
against  the  wishes  of  the  workers. 

After  article  2,  paragraph  c,  add  paragraph  d: 

No  decrease  in  wages  by  the  day  or  by  the  week  can  be  admitted  by  the 
workers.  For  those  who  work  by  the  piece,  prices  must  be  settled  on  the  basis  ot 
the  new  hours  of  work  after  agreement  between  the  workers  and  the  employers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the 
proposed  amendment  is  not  in  order.  It  is  not  within  the  province 
of  this  conference  in  dealing  with  the  question  of  hours  of  labor  to 
determine  whether  or  not  there  shall  be  an  increase  or  a  reduction 
in  the  wage  rates  that  accompany  those  hours  of  labor,  and  it  is  not 
within  the  province  of  this  conference  in  dealing  with  the  question 
of  hours  of  labor  to  determine  whether  the  compensation  on  piece¬ 
work  shall  be  through  agreements  with  employers  or  by  any  other 
process  that  may  be  determined  upon  within  the  respective  coun¬ 
tries,  and  consequently  the  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  proposed 
amendment  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  I  am  glad  that  we  disposed  of  the 
last  amendment,  Mr.  Chairman,  so  I  will  say  nothing  further  about 
it:  but,  as  I  understand,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  now  holds  the 
floor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No.  Mr.  Crawford’s  amendment  has  not 
been  seconded. 

Is  there  any  further  amendment  to  clause  2? 

Mr.  Ilg,  of  Switzerland,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  have  not  requested  the  floor  in  order 
to  suggest  a  change  in  the  proposal  of  the  commission,  but  I  wish 
to  propose  to  the  conference  that  we  vote  on  a  resolution  on  the  48- 
hour  week  or  rather,  the  8-hour  day.  1  therefore  move  that  the 
conference  place  the  following  question  upon  the  agenda  of  the 
next  conference:  An  eight-hour  day  for  the  first  five  days,  and 
less  than  eight  hours  for  Saturday. 

Here  is  my  reason  for  making  this  motion.  I  consider  that  the 
problem  was  not  discussed  as  it  should  have  been.  The  principle 
of  the  8-hour  day  was  discussed  at  the  same  time  as  that  of  the 
48-hour  week;  one  was  made  to  include  the  other.  Acceptance  of 
the  8-hour  principle  did  not  necessarily  imply  the  48-hour  week 
simply  because  6  times  8  is  48. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  But — 7  times  8  makes  56. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  Seven  times  8  makes  56. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  But  if  the  seventh  day  is  a  day  of 
rest - 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  Nobody  has  said  that. 

Air.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Yes  they  have. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  It  is  implied,  because  you  talk  of  a 
48-hour  week. 

Air.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  consider  that  the  question  has  been 
poorly  stated  from  the  beginning.  The  8-hour  day  with  Saturday 
afternoon  free  is  what  the  workers  are  asking,  and  it  is  also  on  the 
agenda,  so  that  from  the  very  beginning  the  question  of  the  8-hour 
day  and  the  44  or  45  hour  week  should  have  been  discussed.  Inas¬ 
much  as  I  believe  that  the  problem  has  not  been  fully  considered, 
1  beg  the  conference  at  least  to  adopt  the  motion  that  the  next 
conference  shall  discuss  not  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week, 
but  the  8-hour  day  and  a  Saturday  of  less  than  8  hours. 

1  think  that  is  the  least  the  conference  can  do.  Workers  have 
already  begun  a  fight  for  the  45-hour  week  in  many  countries. 
I  believe  that  the  conference  can  not  simply  ignore  the  question, 
but  that  it  is  obliged  to  discuss  it,  and  to  find  a  formula  by  means 
of  which  the  Saturday  afternoon  rest  may  be  enforced  after  a  cer¬ 
tain  number  of  years — something  which  is  perfectly  possible. 
As  far  as  I  am  concerned  I  do  not  believe  that  this  could  be  accom¬ 
plished  over  night,  but  I  wish  that  a  certain  period  of  time  might 
He  allotted  for  the  introduction  of  this  measure.  Once  more,  I  am 


infinitely  sorry  that  the  question  was  not  put  on  the  right  grounds 
at  the  beginning.  Then  our  discussions  would  have  included  it. 
I  do  not  wish  to  go  back  to  it  to-day,  but  I  ask  the  conference  to 
adopt  my  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  are  not  at  the  present  time  considering 
the  agenda  for  the  next  conference.  We  are  considering  a  draft  of 
a  convention  on  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week.  Conse¬ 
quently  the  proposal  presented  by  the  representative  from  Switzer¬ 
land  would  not  at  this  time  be  in  order.  It  would  be  in  order  at 
the  time  when  we  are  considering  the  agenda  for  the  next  conference 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  The  next  session? 

The  Clerk.  Of  the  next  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived, 
the  conference  will  stand  adjourned  until  10  o’clock  to-morrow 
morning. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.05  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken 
to  Tuesday,  Nov.  25,  1919,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  A.  Joseph  Hayes  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini). 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Michel  Ldvie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Dr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Mr.  A.  de  Mello  Franco. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  Tom  Moore  (substitute  for  Mr. 
P.  M.  Draper). 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Luis  Marino  Perez  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas). 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Czeeho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  H.  Waldes  (substitute  for  Mr. 
F.  Hodacz). 

Mr.  F.  Stastny  (substitute  for  Mr. 
R.  Tayerle). 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mrs.  Marie  Hjelmer  (substitute  for 
Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes). 

Mr.  P.  Hedebol  (substitute  for  Mr. 

C.  F.  Madsen). 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 
Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Mr.  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Mr.  Leon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Rt.  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 


Great  Britain — Concluded. 

Mr.  A.  J.  C.  Ross  (substitute  for  Mr. 

D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 

Mr.  Tom  Shaw  (substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramin  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi* 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi, 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Mazumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr.  Ole 
Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowtcz. 


124 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos<?  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  I.acerda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Don  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Mgr.  VelimirStoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 


Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes — Concluded. 
Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Siam:  . 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 


Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada- 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 

Sweden: 

Dr.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 


Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 


EIGHTEENTH  SESSION— TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER  25,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  10.15  o’clock  a.  m.,  Mr.  Jules  Carlier 
(Belgium),  second  vice  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  meeting  is  called  to  order.  The  secre¬ 
tary  has  a  few  announcements  to  make. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  addressed  a  letter  to  the 
Government  delegates  of  a  number  of  delegations,  in  regard  to  the 
Bern  convention  of  1906,  relating  to  the  use  of  white  phosphorous 
in  the  manufacture  of  matches,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  fifth  item 
of  the  agenda  of  the  conference.  I  should  be  glad  to  be  able  to 
complete  my  report  on  that  subject  as  soon  as  possible  and  should  be 
very  much  obliged  if  those  delegations  which  have  not  yet  answered 
would  do  so  within  the  next  few  days. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  a  great  honor  for  me  to  preside  at  to-day’s 
session.  I  suppose  that  the  conference  wishes  me  to  fill  this  office 
to  the  best  of  my  ability,  expediting  the  work  of  the  conference  as 
much  as  possible,  and,  in  particular,  the  discussion  of  the  report 
which  has  been  submitted  on  the  eight-hour  day.  I  take  the  liberty 
of  reminding  the  conference  that  this  report  has  been  discussed  at 
length;  that  it  has  been  the  subject  of  agreements  and  compromises 
among  the  three  parties;  that  it  was  unanimously  adopted,  and  that 
consequently  it  is  submitted  to  the  conference  under  conditions 
making  it  possible  to  proceed  rapidly  to  its  adoption,  with  the  way 
smoothed  before  us.  There  are  only  two  or  three  more  meetings 
left,  and  it  is  to  oar  advantage  to  make  the  most  of  them. 

Mr.  Baldesi  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  Mr.  President,  on  my 
motion  to  add  to  article  2  of  the  convention  on  the  hours  of  work, 
you  thought  fit  to  declare  that  this  was  not  the  time  to  insist  on  this 
proposal.  I  do  not  see  the  wherefore.  You  have  said  yourself  that 
this  conference  is  not  authorized  to  discuss  decreases  in  the  rates  of 
workmen’s  pay,  and  you  would  be  perfectly  right  if  I  came  here  to 
propose  changes  in  the  rates  of  the  workers’  pay.  I  simply  ask  from 
this  conference  that  the  workers  be  guaranteed  that  their  pay  will 
not  be  reduced  on  account  of  the  reduction  in  hours  of  work.  Am 
I  not  within  my  rights  as  a  representative  of  the  workers  in 
trying  to - 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain — interrupting).  Might  I  rise  to  a 
point  of  order?  Is  this  in  order?  I  understand  it  has  relation  to 
wages. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Wilson  yesterday  promised  the  floor  to 
Mr.  Baldesi  to  speak  on  a  point  of  order.  I  am  keeping  Mr.  Wilson’s 
promise  by  giving  the  floor  to  Mr.  Baldesi.  It  is  clearly  understood, 
however,  that  Mr.  Baldesi  has  the  right  to  speak  only  on  the  subject 
of  the  remarks  made  yesterday  by  Mr.  Wilson.  Directly  he  has 
finished,  if  no  one  requests  the  floor,  we  shall  continue  according  to 
our  agenda,  that  is.  devote  ourselves  exclusively  to  the  report 
submitted  by  the  commission.  Mr.  Baldesi’s  remarks  are  now  to 
be  translated.  I  think  it  is  a  matter  of  simple  courtesy  to  allow 
the  remarks  to  be  completed. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  The  employers  right¬ 
fully  seek  in  all  possible  manner  to  decrease,  or  rather  to  try  to 
support,  the  financial  strain  which  will  result  because  of  the  reduction 
of  hours  and  I  recognize — I  grant  them— this  right;  but  also  you  must 


grant  me  the  right  to  try  and  assure  to  the  workers  that  the  advantages 
that  they  have  so  far  obtained  in  all  countries  will  not  be  reduced. 
You  say  that  one  must  not  mention  wages  in  this  conference;  but  I 
must  call  to  your  attention  that  in  the  question  of  overtime  we  have 
ourselves  discussed  an  increased  proportion  of  the  workers’  pay. 

It  is  not  possible  to  separate  the  question  of  hours  of  work  and  the 
question  of  wages.  I  ask  you,  is  it  possible  to  leave  to  the  good  will 
of  the  employers  the  question  of  the  wages  of  the  worker  with  the 
danger  that  the  advantages  that  have  accrued  to  the  workers  will  be 
lost  through  reduction  in  hours  of  work? 

Mr.  President,  my  motion  is  of  capital  importance.  In  my  coun¬ 
try  there  is  no  danger  of  this  reduction  of  pay  being  made,  but  in 
other  countries  where  the  workers  are  less  organized  it  might  be 
dangerous  indeed  for  the  workers  not  to  have  this  guarantee  stated 
by  this  conference.  Allow  me  to  add  also  that  every  time  the 
workers  have  put  forth  any  proposal  in  this  conference  it  has  been 
objected  to  on  the  question  of  form  or  substance.  I  think  that 
those  who  passed  the  treaty  of  peace  meant  this  conference  and  this 
International  Labor  Organization  to  be  a  means  toward  social 
peace,  and  for  myself  I  have  put  my  intelligence  and  all  my  indus¬ 
try  at  the  service  of  this  cause.  But  if  we  must  go  back  to  the 
workers  without  any  results,  then  I  am  afraid  indeed  that  great 
social  turmoil  will  ensue.  Therefore,  Mr.  President,  if  my  proposal 
is  accepted,  the  conference  will  give  its  first  proof  of  good  will 
toward  the  working  classes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  gave  the  floor  to  Mr.  Baldesi,  as  I  explained 
only  a  moment  ago,  to  keep  a  promise  made  yesterday  by  Mr.  Wilson. 
Mr.  Baldesi  spoke  on  a  point  of  order,  which  was  all  that  he  was 
entitled  to  do,  and  I  affirm  the  decision  made  yesterday  by  Mr. 
Wilson. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  are  concerned  with  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  and  nothing  else.  Mr.  Ilg  now  requests  the  floor.  The 
same  objection  was  raised  in  his  case  yesterday  by  Mr.  Wilson,  and 
I  should  not  be  doing  my  duty  if  I  did  not  affirm  the  decision  ren¬ 
dered  then  by  Mr.  Wilson.  Mr.  Ilg  is  not  in  a  position  to  speak, 
and  my  decision  is  that  I  can  not  give  him  the  floor. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  request  the  floor  on  a  point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No;  Mr.  - 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Then  if  one  is  no  longer  allowed  to 
speak  on  a  point  of  order  in  the  debates,  we  have  nothing  more  to  d  i 
here,  because  we  can  not  support  such  conduct.  I  consider  that  th-: 
decision  rendered  yesterday  by  Mr.  Wilson  was  not  correct,  and  that 
the  point  must  be  cleared  up.  Moreover,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  con 
ference  to  render  a  decision,  and  not  the  duty  of  the  President.  I  re¬ 
quest  the  floor  on  a  point  of  order. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Closure  is  not  requested.  I  will  read  the 
standing  orders  to  Mr.  Ilg. 

A  delegate  may  rise  to  a  point  of  order,  and  such  point  of  order  shall  be  immedi¬ 
ately  decided  by  the  President  in  accordance  with  the  standing  orders. 

There  are  the  standing  orders.  The  President,  Mr.  Wilson, 
interpreted  them  yesterday,  and  it  is  my  duty  to  see  that  his  inter¬ 
pretation  is  enforced  to-day. 


INTERNATIONAL  I 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Mr.  Wilson  may  have  made  a  mistake. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Leon  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  believe  that  the  decision 
rendered  by  the  President  can  be  sustained.  There  is  no  doubt 
that,  if  we  abide  by  an  absolutely  literal  interpretation  of  the  stand¬ 
ing  orders,  the  question  raised  by  Mr.  Baldesi  does  not  come  into 
the  discussion  at  the  present  time.  But  you  can  not  prevent  it 
from  being  connected  with  the  question  which  we  are  now  discussing, 
and  you  therefore  find  yourselves  confronted  with  a  rather  difficult 
dilemma.  If  we  do  not  vote  upon  the  question  now,  it  may  be  that, 
owing  to  the  English  rules  of  order,  adopted  at  this  conference,  we 
shall  not  have  the  right  to  put  it  when  the  convention  is  finally 
accepted.  Consequently  we  must  vote  upon  the  question  at  the 
present  time,  though  we  do  not  ask  that  it  be  inserted  in  the  con¬ 
vention,  as  that  is  not  possible.  Owing  to  its  undeniable  impor¬ 
tance,  and  since  the  question  has  been  raised  in  every  country 
where  the  eight-hour  day  has  been  enforced  by  law,  we  request  that 
the  Baldesi  motion  be  examined  by  the  conference  directly  the 
convention  is  finally  adopted.  I  believe  that,  if  the  question  is 
brought  up  in  this  way,  we  can  be  given  satisfaction. 

I  wish  to  observe,  at  the  same  time,  that  such  action  will  obviously 
prolong  the  debates  somewhat.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  we 
spend  half  hours  and  whole  hours  in  discussions  on  simple  questions 
of  order  that  get  us  nowhere.  I  think  it  would  be  rather  arbitrary  to 
refuse  the  floor  to  a  labor  delegate  who  is  simply  executing  the  com¬ 
mission  which  he  received  to  come  to  this  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux,  I  quite  agree  with  you. 

[Several  delegates  interrupt,  and  the  President  requests  that  their 
remarks  be  translated  into  English.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  I  agree  with  you  absolutely. 
There  can  be  no  question  of  preventing  any  motion  whatsoever  from 
being  submitted,  providing  that  it  is  submitted  at  the  proper  time. 
But  at  the  present  time — according  to  the  spirit  of  the  standing 
orders  to  which  the  President,  Mr.  Wilson,  referred  yesterday— we 
are  discussing  the  report  of  the  commission  on  the  eight-hour  day. 
Consequently  we  can  not  discuss  other  matters  at  the  present  time. 
Any  motions  which  it  is  wished  to  present  before  or  after  the  final 
closure  of  discussion  of  this  subject  may  be  submitted.  But  at  the 
present  time  we  are  discussing  article  2  exclusively,  and  we  must 
keep  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy).  I  ask  for  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  exhausted  your  privilege;  you 
have  spoken  twice. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  I  beg  you,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  not  to  become  too  impatient.  This  is  a  matter  of  giving  proper 
representation  to  the  interests  of  the  workers,  and  they  ought  to  be 
listened  to.  I  accept  the  proposal  made  by  Mr.  Jouhaux,  and  the 
question  will  be  submitted  again  following  the  discussion  of  this 
convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Then  we’re  all  agreed. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  request  the  floor  on  article  2. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Ilg,  do  the  remarks  you  wish  to  make 
bear  directly  on  article  2? 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  That,  Mr.  President,  I  can  not  say 
offhand.  But  I  request  the  floor  on  article  2,  paragraph  a.  Have 
I  or  have  I  not  the  floor? 

I  move  to  omit  the  words  “supervisory  and  confidential  capacity” 
from  article  2,  paragraph  a.  The  paragraph  will  then  read  as  follows: 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  not  apply  to  persons  holding  positions  of 
managerial  responsibility. 

I  propose  to  strike  out  the  rest  because  it  would  be  very  difficult 
to  distinguish  between  the  word  “supervisory”  and  the  words  “con¬ 
fidential  capacity.”  What  is  meant  by  “supervisory”  “confidential 
capacity”?  There  are  perhaps  as  many  supervisors  as  workers,  and 
it  is  not  clearly  understood  just  what  is  meant  by  “confidential 
capacity.”  That  is  why  I  move  that  it  be  struck  out,  and  the  word 
“managerial”  left.  That  should  suffice,  and  there  is  no  necessity 


ABOR  CONFERENCE  125 

of  adding  words  which  only  impede  a  clear  explanation  of  what  the 
conference  wishes  to  say. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Has  your  motion  been  seconded?  No. 
Then  the  motion  is  not  before  the  conference. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  The  paragraph  is  certainly  worded 
in  a  rather  elliptic  fashion,  but  that  arises  from  the  fact  that  our 
worker  colleagues  requested  that  the  last  words  be  omitted,  and 
for  good  reasons.  The  article  was  originally  worded:  “Providing 
that  they  are  not  engaged  in  manual  labor.” 

They  considered  this  provision  dangerous,  as  it  seemed  to  create  a 
sort  of  prejudice  against  employees,  and  they  believed  that  if  this 
phrase  were  adopted  it  would  result  in  including  in  this  class  of 
persons  all  employees  of  offices,  etc.  That  is  the  only  reason  for 
omitting  the  words  which  were  contained  in  the  text  of  the  Organ¬ 
izing  Committee.  There  is  thus  no  danger  of  the  comprehensive 
interpretation  feared  by  our  colleague,  Mr.  Ilg.  The  commission 
examined  the  text  with  care,  and  it  would  be  difficult  for  us  to 
come  back  with  a  new  text.  We  request  that  the  text  be  adopted 
with  this  explanation  and  this  interpretation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  further  opposition,  therefore  let 
us  proceed  to  article  3. 

Mr.  YARELA  (Uruguay).  Mr.  President,  I  only  want  to  call 
your  attention  to  a  question  of  editing.  I  believe  that  part  of  a 
phrase  has  been  omitted,  and  that  the  matter  should  be  corrected. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  In  the  French  text  of  article  2  the 
printer,  who  was  very  hurried,  omitted  a  line  which  may  be  found 
in  the  English  text,  and  also  in  the  text  of  our  report.  The  omitted 
line  runs  as  follows: 

is  less  than  eight  hours,  a  decree  by  the  authority  concerned  or  a  convention  *  *  * 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  a  simple  correction  involving  the  adding 
of  some  omitted  matter. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  The  correct  text  is  in  the  documents 
which  I  have  here,  and  in  the  English  text.  The  French  text  will 
be  corrected. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now  we  will  proceed  to  vote  on  article  3. 
Has  any  amendment  been  submitted? 

As  no  amendment  has  been  submitted  the  article  is  adopted. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  article  4. 

Mr.  Castberg,  of  Norway,  is  recognized. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  we  have  the  very 
important  question  of  continuous  work  in  Norway,  where  there  is  a 
considerable  and  important  chemical  as  well  as  a  wood  and  pulp 
industry  and  electrical  power  plants,  all  with  continuous  work. 
Prior  to  the  law  of  1919,  there  had  already  been  introduced  an  agree¬ 
ment  of  shifts  which  carried  with  it  a  shorter  average  Working  week, 
about  52  or  53  hours,  for  industries  of  this  kind.  In  the  law 
of  1919  there  is  no  special  provision  for  a  prolonged  working  week 
for  industries  operated  continuously.  The  48-hour  week  is  en¬ 
acted  also  for  those  processes.  The  law,  however,  contains  the 
following  special  provision : 

In  continuous  processes  the  Government  may  approve  a  system  of  shifts  which 
in  the  course  of  the  shift  period  gives  to  workmen  an  ordinary  time  of  work  averaging 
48  hours  a  week  and  a  continuous  rest  period  of  24  hours  a  week  on  an  average.  In 
deciding  on  such  a  system  particular  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  wishes  in 
this  respect  of  the  majority  of  workers. 

This  paragraph  would  consequently  imply  that  in  one  period  of 
three  weeks,  a  working  week  would  not  average  more  than  48  hours, 
each  working  six  shifts  every  week,  extra  shifts  being  introduced. 

In  accordance  with  this  I,  as  a  delegate  of  the  Norwegian  Govern¬ 
ment,  can  not  agree  to  such  a  stipulation  as  the  one  contained  in  the 
draft  convention,  article  4,  proposed  by  the  committee.  It  seems 
to  me  that  such  a  provision  would  in  some  degree  make  fictitious  the 
main  principle  of  the  convention,  and  it  further  seems  to  me  that 
this  provision  is  objectionable  also,  especially  for  the  reason  that  it 
hits  those  workmen  who  may  in  a  peculiar  degree  demand  short 
hours  of  work,  namely,  workmen  regularly  performing  occasional 
work  at  night. 


126 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


I.  then,  propose  this  amendment  instead  of  article  4,  and  it  is 
seconded  by  the  workers’  delegate  from  my  country : 

In  continuous  processes  the  Government  may  approve  a  system  of  shifts  which  in 
ihe  course  of  the  shift  period  gives  each  workman  an  ordinary  time  of  work  averaging 
48  hours  a  week  and  a  continuous  rest  period  of  24  hours  a  week  on  an  average.  In 
deciding  on  such  a  system  particular  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  wishes  in 
this  respect  of  the  majority  of  workers. 

Mr.  TEIGEN  (Norway).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Ilg  has  the  floor.  On  the  same  subject? 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  As  far  as  possible,  Mr.  President,  because 
I  do  not  want  everybody  to  ask  me  what  I  am  going  to  talk  about. 
It  is  not  the  first  time  that  I  have  had  the  floor  in  an  assembly,  and 
I  am  quite  well  aware  what  should  be  done.  As  far  as  I  have  under¬ 
stood  the  question,  the  delegate  from  Norway  has  made  no  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  amendment  is  seconded. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Well,  gentlemen,  I  can  do  nothing  but 
second  the  motion  made  by  the  delegate  from  Norway.  I  also  con¬ 
sider  that  article  4  as  proposed  by  the  commission  is  very  badly 
worded.  The  result  of  this  proposal  is  that  workers  engaged  in  very 
difficult  work,  that  is  often  injurious  to  the  health,  have  to  work 
longer  than  other  factory  employees.  It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted 
that  the  commission  was  unable  to  find  a  solution  other  than  that  of 
a  56-hour  week. 

I  therefore  second  the  motion  just  made  by  the  delegate  from  Nor¬ 
way,  and  in  addition  I  make  a  new  motion.  With  so  many  points 
of  order  it  is  necessary  to  present  all  proposals  at  the  proper  time, 
as  otherwise  there  are  interruptions,  and  discussion  becomes  very 
difficult.  I  make  a  tentative  motion  in  case  the  motion  of  the  dele¬ 
gate  from  Norway  is  rejected.  I  move  that  the  second  paragraph  of 
article  4  be  curtailed.  This  reads: 

Limitation  of  the  hours  of  work  shall  not  affect  any  ho.idays  which  may  be  secured 
to  the  workers  in  such  industries  by  industrial  law  in  compensation  for  the  weekly 
day  of  rest. 

I  do  not  know  what  is  meant  by  this  phrase,  but  I  move  that  the 
following  phrase  be  substituted  for  it: 

In  addition  every  worker  shall  be  entitled  to  a  corresponding  number  of  holidays 
with  pay  in  compensation  for  the  weekly  day  of  rest. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Then  this  is  a  conditional  amendment? 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  Exactly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Shaw  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  personally  feel 
that  the  resolution  of  Judge  Castberg  would  be  a  very  good  one, 
though  he  has  overlooked,  I  think,  a  very  essential  fact,  which  is 
that  this  convention  is  not  intended  to  set  up  a  maximum  of  work¬ 
ing  conditions,  but  a  minimum  below  which  no  country  should  fall. 
That  fundamental  principle  should  be  borne  in  mind. 

Now,  I  am  going  to  try  to  make  a  perfectly  plain  declaration,  on 
my  own  part.  So  far  as  I  know,  the  workers’  side  of  the  committee 
of  15  went  into  the  sessions  of  that  committee  with  a  view  to  doing  the 
best  work  possible.  They  had  alist  of  amendments  to  propose;  the  em¬ 
ployers  had  a  list  of  amendments  to  propose  as  well ;  Government 
representatives  moved  amendments;  and  the  whole  of  these  things 
were  thoroughly  thrashed  out  in  the  committee,  and  finally  this 
report  was  presented.  I  myself  consider  it  well  to  stick  absolutely 
to  our  agreements  from  end  to  end.  I  am  quite  prepared  and,  I 
hope,  quite  able  to  defend  my  action  before  the  workers,  either  in 
England  or  any  country  in  the  world. 

If  we  once  admit  the  principle  that  we  must  vote  for  things  be¬ 
cause  they  please  us,  after  coming  to  an  arrangement,  we  shall  have 
the  conference  again  discussing  every  item,  every  line,  and  every 
word,  without  chance  of  coming  to  a  conclusion.  If  the  employers 
try  to  weaken  the  clauses,  obviously  the  workers  must  move  all 
their  amendments.  If  the  workers  try  to  strengthen  the  clauses, 
then  the  employers  have  equal  justification  in  trying  to  weaken 
them  again  and  we  throw  the  whole  convention  into  the  midst  of  a 
discussion  when  we  think  an  agreement  has  been  reached. 

I  hope  that  so  far  as  the  labor  delegates  are  concerned,  those  who 
gave  their  trust  to  the  five  men,  those  who  are  here  to  get  business 


done  and  not  to  fill  the  newspapers,  will  feel  as  I  feel — that  we  are 
honorably  bound  by  this  agreement,  and  I  shall  stick  to  it,  every 
line  of  it,  vote  every  line  of  it,  whatever  amendment  may  be  moved 
against  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May'  I  consider  the  words  of  Mr.  Shaw  as  a 
motion  of  closure? 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  motion  seconded? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  I  second  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  may  be  put  to  a  vote  if  20 
members  second  it. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  In  the  proposal  of  this  motion,  it 
will  be  proper  to  say  that  I  withdraw  the  motion  with  that  in  view. 
I  have  pointed  out  this  question  as  an  important  question,  but  after 
what  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Shaw,  and  what  is  going  on.  I  should  like 
to  withdraw  my  motion  and  make  a  proposal  to  recommend  it  for  the 
consideration  of  the  next  conference.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Shaw  has  moved  the  closure 
of  the  discussion.  According  to  the  terms  of  the  standing  orders 
the  motion  must  be  put  to  a  vote  if  20  members  second  it  by  rising 
in  their  places.  Are  there  20  persons  standing? 

[The  number  of  delegates  seconding  the  motion  of  closure  is 
verified  by  the  teller.] 

It  is  granted  to  a  single  member  to  speak  against  the  closure. 
Does  anyone  request  the  floor  to  speak  against  the  closure? 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  wish  to  take  the  floor  against 
the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Shaw,  but  nevertheless  there  is  something 
slightly  paradoxical  about  it.  Obviously,  the  draft  convention 
before  the  delegates  is  the  result  of  heated  discussions  on  thb 
part  of  the  Commission  of  Fifteen.  Now,  at  the  meetings  of 
this  Commission  of  Fifteen,  the  workers’  delegates  unanimously 
defended  the  point  of  view  advanced  a  short  time  ago  by  Judge 
Castberg  and  resumed  by  our  colleague,  Mr.  Ilg.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  we  made  every  possible  effort  to  have  the  amendments  which 
we  had  drawn  up  included  in  the  convention.  Our  efforts  were  not 
entirely  successful,  and  the  majority  of  the  commission  were  in 
favor  of  the  text  which  is  now  before  the  delegates.  Is  the  fact 
that  we  were  in  the  minority  in  the  commission  an  obligation  on 
the  part  of  the  delegates  who  did  not  belong  to  that  commission  to 
hold  the  point  of  view  which  was  defended  during  the  meeting  of 
workers’  delegates,  and  to  try  to  gain  their  point?  I  think  not, 
because  if  such  were  the  case,  it  would  block  all  discussions. 

However  impatient  we  may  be  to  obtain  results  as  quickly  as 
possible,  and  I  am  as  impatient  as  anyone,  I  can  not  admit  that  the 
discussion  should  be  curtailed  when  we  are  concerned  with  points 
as  important  as  those  which  we  have  just  been  discussing. 

Therefore  I  do  not  oppose  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Shaw,  but  I 
do  request  that  this  may  not  be  a  principle  in  the  case  of  all  amend¬ 
ments  submitted,  even  if  these  amendments  are  the  same  as  those 
submitted  by  the  workers  and  not  adopted  by  the  Commission  of 
Fifteen. 

Mr.  SHAW  (Great  Britain).  A  word  of  explanation.  I  only 
proposed  the  closure  on  article  4. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  say.  Now.  as 
closure  has  been  pronounced  on  article  4  and  as  the  amendment  of 
the  delegate  from  Norway  has  been  withdrawn,  only  Mr.  llg’s 
amendment  remains. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  Mr.  President,  must  we  vote  on  the 
closure  now? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Exactly.  We  are  going  to  vote  on  the 
closure.  All  those  in  favor  of  closure  on  article  4  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  for  and  against  are  counted.] 

The  closure  of  debate  is  declared  by  60  votes  to  14. 

As  the  amendment  of  the  delegate  from  Norway  has  been  with¬ 
drawn,  we  have  nothing  further  to  discuss. 

A  Voice.  I  reinstate  that  motion. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


127 


The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Tig's  amendment  now  remains. 

The  amendment  is  to  substitute  for  the  record  sentence  in  article  4 : 

In  addition  every  worker  shall  be  entitled  to  a  corresponding  number  of  days  of 
holiday  with  pay  in  compensation  for  the  weekly  day  of  rest. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  It  is  not  possible  to 
vote  on  the  Ilg  amendment  before  having  voted  on  the  Castberg 
amendment  as  drafted  by  Mr.  Castberg. 

The  PRESIDENT.  He  withdrew  it. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy— remarks  in  Italian).  If  he  has  withdrawn 
it,  then  I  reinstate  it  and  ask  that  it  be  voted  on. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  I  believe  Mr.  Baldesi  made  a  mistake. 
Mr.  Ilg  presented  his  proposal  as  a  substitute  to  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Castberg. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Might  I  ask  a  question,  Mr. 
Chairman?  Am  I  right  in  thinking  that  the  chairman  has  decided 
that  there  is  a  closure?  If  so,  wny  this  further  discussion? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  position  is  this:  Mr.  Castberg  with¬ 
drew  his  motion  and  Mr.  Baldesi  recalled  it.  It  is  a  question  there¬ 
fore  of  putting  to  a  vote  Mr.  Baldesi’s  amendment  in  place  of  that 
submitted  by  Mr.  Castberg.  All  those  in  favor  ol  the  Castberg 
motion  recalled  by  Mr.  Baldesi  please  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  for  and  against  are  counted.] 

The  amendment  is  rejected  50  votes  to  16. 

We  now  come  to  Mr.  Ilg’s  amendment.  Mr.  Garcia  requests 
the  floor. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  The  general  discussion  is  closed. 

The  PRESIDENT  (addressing  Mr.  Garcia).  Do  you  wish  to 
speak  on  Mr.  Ilg’s  motion? 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  leave  in  the 
record  a  statement  showing  the  attitude  of  the  delegates  from 
Ecuador  toward  article  4.  I  am  not  raising  any  question  or  making 
any  argument  or  discussing  any  point.  I  do  not  feel  that  we  are 
bound  to  the  decision  of  this — 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  discussion  is  closed.  There  can  be  no 
debate  on  article  4. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  am  not  going  to  discuss  any  point. 
1  am  going  to  leave  in  the  record  a  statement  showing  the  way  the 
delegates  from  Ecuador  feel  in  this  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  discussion  is  closed.  We  are  now  going 
to  vote  on  Mr.  Ilg’s  amendment.  All  those  in  favor  of  adopting  this 
will  please  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  for  and  against  are  counted.] 

The  amendment  is  rejected  47  votes  to  7. 

We  now  pass  to  article  4.  May  we  consider  article  4  as  adopted? 

Voices.  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Article  4  is  adopted. 

We  now  pass  to  article  5.  Has  anyone  an  amendment  to  propose? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  might  I  ask  the  re¬ 
porter  for  the  commission  one  question  in  reference  to  article  5? 
One  of  the  schedules  made  provision  for  seasonal  employments. 

As  I  read  the  report  of  the  commission,  they  considered  it  desirable 
to  eliminate  the  schedules,  but  thought  the  clauses  proposed  made 
provision  whereby  seasonal  occupations  could  be  provided  for.  I 
should  like  to  ask  the  reporter  for  the  commission  which  of  the  clauses, 
in  his  opinion,  covers  the  question  of  seasonal  occupations.  Is  it 
covered  by  5  or  6? 

A  Voice.  Six. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  It  is  suggested  6.  If  so,  I  will  defer 
any  consideration  of  it  until  we  come  to  6,  but  I  do  not  wish  to  pass 
5  without  knowing  whether  the  question  comes  up  under  this  article. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  It  is  article  6,  paragraph  4. 

I  may  say  article  5  is  aimed  in  a  general  way  at  a  very  large  num¬ 
ber  of  exceptional  situations. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  other  remarks?  Article  5 
may  then  be  considered  as  adopted. 

Article  6.  Is  there  any  amendment? 


Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  in  article  6  the  first 
clause  provides: 

First.  Permanent  exceptions  tnat  may  be  allowed  in  work  of  preparation  and  com¬ 
pletion,  and  for  work  that  must  be  necessarily  carried  on  outside  the  limits  laid  down 
for  the  general  working  of  establishments,  or  for  certain  classes  of  work  whose  work 
is  essentially  intermittent. 

It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  the  last  sentence  “or  for  certain 
classes  of  work  whose  work  is  essentially  intermittent  ”  was  intended 
to  cover  seasonal  employment.  I  should  like  to  know  if  that  was 
the  view  of  the  commission  in  drafting  it. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  No,  the  second  is  concerned  with 
seasonal  employments: 

The  temporary  exceptions  which  may  be  allowed,  so  that  establishments  may 
deal  with  exceptional  cases  of  pressure  of  work. 

The  seasonal  pressure  of  work  is  included  in  exceptional  cases  of 
pressure  of  work,  as  the  report  indicates.  This  number  2  replaces 
Schedule  C  of  the  organizing  committee,  as  is  explained  in  the 
report. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  With  respect  to  the  workers,  I  would 
submit  that  the  second  section  can  not  possibly  cover  seasonal 
occupation.  It  says,  “the  temporary  exceptions  which  may  be 
allowed,  so  that  establishments  may  deal  with  exceptional  cases  of 
pressure  of  work.”  It  is  important  to  us  because  of  the  climatic 
conditions  prevailing  in  Canada.  There  are  certain  occupations, 
essentially  seasonal,  which  can  only  be  carried  on  for  a  limited  period, 
and  in  the  draft  convention  of  the  Organizing  Committee  there  was 
provision  for  seasonal  occupations.  I  would  suggest  to  the  reporter 
that  if  it  is  the  intention  of  the  commission  to  provide  for  seasonal 
occupations,  as  the  draft  convention  did,  it  can  be  very  easily  done 
by  inserting  either  before  or  after  the  word  “intermittent”  in  the 
last  sentence  of  the  first  clause  of  article  6  the  word  “seasonal,”  so 
that  it  would  read,  “or  for  certain  classes  of  work  whose  work  is 
essentially  seasonal  or  intermittent.”  I  should  be  glad  to  know  if 
the  reporter  sees  any  objection  to  that  amendment. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  see  a  serious  drawback  in  it.  Para¬ 
graph  1  is  concerned  with  classes  of  workers  whose  work  is  intermit¬ 
tent,  such  as  doorkeepers,  gatekeepers,  and  it  is  better  not  to  confuse 
questions  relative  to  classes  of  workers  with  other  more  general  and 
quite  different  questions. 

Industries  which  are  carried  on  at  certain  times  of  the  year  only  are 
included  in  paragraph  2.  When  there  is  exceptional  pressure  of 
work  at  such  periods — which  may  happen  in  France  in  the  manu¬ 
facture  of  perfumery — then  account  needs  to  be  taken  of  the  situa¬ 
tion.  In  short,  if  there  is  no  exceptional  pressure  of  work  there  is 
no  necessity  for  providing  for  additional  hours,  and  if  an  exceptional 
case  arises,  then  additional  hours  may  be  provided  for.  Every  pos¬ 
sible  contingency  is  provided  for  in  either  the  first  or  the  second 
paragraph,  and,  whenever  necessary,  agreements  may  be  effected 
between  employers  and  workers  and  exceptions  decided  upon. 

Mr.  PAUS  (Norway).  I  think  that  the  regulations  made  by  the 
competent  authorities  after  consultation  with  the  employers’  organ¬ 
izations  and  workers’  organizations  interested,  and  so  on,  ought  to 
be  given  as  a  rule  and  not  in  each  instance.  I  will  therefore  pro¬ 
pose  that  these  words  “in  each  instance”  be  omitted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  anyone  second  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Paus? 

(No  response.) 

The  amendment  is  not  seconded.  Consequently  I  believe  that, 
as  Mr.  Rowell  has  exhausted  his  right  to  speak  and  as  the  reporter 
has  answered  all  the  questions  which  were  asked  him,  I  may  con¬ 
sider  discussion  of  article  6  as  closed.  Therefore,  without  objec¬ 
tion,  article  6  is  carried. 

I  pass  to  article  7.  Is  there  any  amendment? 

There  is  no  amendment.  Article  7  is  considered  as  carried. 

Article  8  is  now  up  for  discussion.  Is  there  any  amendment? 

There  are  no  amendments.  That  article  is  also  carried. 

We  now  come  to  article  9.  The  reporter  has  the  floor. 


128 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Mr.  President,  I  saw  in  this  morn¬ 
ing’s  report  that  the  commission  on  tropical  countries  had  submitted 
its  text  in  the  form  of  a  separate  convention.  It  would  thus  be  well 
to  delete  article  9,  call  article  9  10  and  article  10  11. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  no  opposition?  It  is  a  simple 
change.  The  proposal  of  the  reporter  is  therefore  carried. 

We  shall  proceed  to  article  10. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  move  that  the  words  “in  event  of  war” 
be  deleted.  They  are  unnecessary.  It  is  understood  in  this  con¬ 
vention  that  in  case  of  war  the  convention  will  be  suspended  by  the 
Governments  concerned.  Moreover,  it  is  self-evident  that  in  the 
event  of  war  the  conference  could  not  say  whether  it  were  necessary. 

I  should  prefer  that  in  speaking  of  the  eight-hour  day  in  this  con¬ 
vention  there  should  be  no  mention  of  war.  For  that  reason  I  wish 
to  delete  the  words  “in  the  event  of  war.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  this  amendment  seconded? 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Mr.  President,  I  am  sure  all  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  this  assembly  wish  that  there  might  be  no  more  war,  and  that 
a  large  number  of  us  hope  there  will  be  no  more  war.  But  the  com¬ 
mission  nevertheless  drew  up  the  text  in  case  that,  contrary  to  all 
expectations,  there  might  be  another  war.  In  practice,  I  do  not  hesi¬ 
tate  to  admit  that  this  text  is  useless,  because  if  a  nation  declares 
war  she  is  not  going  to  be  concerned  with  our  text.  She  will  arrange 
for  the  additional  hours  which  are  necessary  for  purposes  of  defense. 
But  it  is  precisely  because,  in  the  improbable  case  of  war,  these 
exceptions  might  be  made  that  it  seems  more  honorable  to  say  so. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  I  am  going  to  vote  for  Mr.  Ilg’s  amend¬ 
ment  because  I  consider  it  fruitless  to  talk  of  war.  The  last  phrase 
“emergency  endangering  the  national  safety”  is  more  general  and 
necessarily  includes  the  case  of  war. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No  one  has  seconded  the  amendment. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  Yes,  I  seconded  it. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  am  afraid  that' omission  of  the  words 
“in  the  event  of  war”  would  result  in  injurious  extension  of  the 
words  “in  the  event  of  emergency  endangering  the  national  safety.” 
When  these  words  follow  the  words  “in  the  event  of  war”  their 
meaning  is  quite  clear,  but  when  they  are  isolated  attempts  can 
always  be  made  to  abuse  them.  I  believe  that  it  is  preferable,  and 
I  am  not  trying  to  make  this  dramatic,  but  I  believe  that  the  temp¬ 
tation  to  abuse  the  words  “in  the  event  of  emergency  endangering 
the  national  safety”  will  be  greater  if  the  words  “in  the  event  of 
war”  do  not  precede  them.  We  have  explained  why  the  rest  was 
added — because  of  the  law  in  certain  countries  which  provides  for 
the  event  of  war.  I  believe  that  the  text  should  be  left  as  it  is,  and 
I  repeat  my  hope  that  it  may  never  need  to  be  used. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  I  consider  the  question  of  slight  impor¬ 
tance,  but  I  admit  that  the  reporter  is  right  in  his  observations. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Then  the  amendment  is  withdrawn? 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  No. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  in  favor  of  adopting  it  please  raise 
their  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

Those  opposed  please  raise  their  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

The  amendment  is  rejected  40  votes  to  4. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  article  11,  which  has  become  article  10. 
Are  there  any  amendments? 

[No  amendments  are  proposed.] 

There  are  no  amendments,  and  the  article  is  therefore  considered 
as  carried. 

W7e  have  now  come  to  the  end  of  our  task,  but  I  do  not  wish  the 
remarks  I  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  session,  simply  with  the 
desire  of  accelerating  our  work,  to  be  interpreted  as  a  wish  to  prevent 
anyone  in  this  assembly  from  speaking.  I  desire  to  perform  the 
duties  which  have  devolved  upon  me  for  the  moment  as  impartially 
as  possible,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that,  if  the  assembly  sees  no 
objection,  the  statements  of  principle  which  were  announced  to  us 


a  short  time  ago  should  be  made  before  we  vote  on  referring  the  con¬ 
vention  to  the  committee  on  drafting. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  want  to  know  if  we  are  going  to  vote 
on  this  draft  convention  now  or  when  it  returns  from  the  drafting 
committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  answer  is  in  the  affirmative.  We  are 
not  taking  a  final  vote  now.  The  draft  convention  must  be  referred 
to  the  committee  on  drafting,  and  after  examination  by  that  com¬ 
mittee  it  will  be  returned  to  the  conference  and  a  final  vote  will 
then  have  to  be  taken. 

Mr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  We  have  acted  entirely  differently 
with  the  night  work.  About  the  night  work  the  chairman,  Mr. 
Wilson,  ruled  that  we  were  to  vote  here  on  the  draft  convention  and 
that  a  two-thirds  majority  will  not  be  required  until  it  returns  from 
the  drafting  committee.  That  was  the  decision  of  Mr.  Wilson  on 
the  night  work. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  has  been  a  misunderstanding. 

Mr.  PAUS  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  before  we  vote  I  want 
briefly  to  explain  why  I  am  going  to  vote  against  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  submitted  by  the  commission.  I  can  tell  you  that  the  Nor¬ 
wegian  employers,  whom  I  am  representing  in  this  conference,  by 
agreements  between  their  association  and  the  labor  unions  in  all 
Norwegian  industry,  including  the  continuous  industries,  adopted 
the  48-hour  week  before  the  law  of  the  11th  of  July  of  this  year, 
whereby  this  working  time  was  enacted  and  which  is  going  to 
be  put  into  force  the  1st  of  January,  1920.  Of  course,  therefore,  I 
would  willingly  have  voted  for  an  international  convention  for  48 
hours  in  all  industries.  But  to  adopt  the  same  for  ships  as  a  princi¬ 
ple  at  this  conference  is  in  my  opinion  a  very  serious  matter.  We 
must  not  forget  that  this  question  has  not  been  prepared  by  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee,  and  no  examination  of  the  consequences  of  this  pro¬ 
posal  for  the  seafaring  nations  has  been  made.  And,  as  it  has  been 
mentioned  before  in  this  discussion,  among  the  members  of  this  con¬ 
ference  those  who  have  any  experience  in  this  matter  are  surely  very 
few.  We  have  to  consider  that  a  certain  minimum  crew  has  to  be  at 
work  night  and  day,  which  means  that  it  is  necessary  to  take  more 
men  than  now,  and  how  shall  these  new  men  get  beds  in  a  ship  where 
there  is  no  bed  vacant?  I  mean  that  all  the  provisions  relative  to 
transport  by  sea  ought  to  be  determined  by  a  special  conference  deal¬ 
ing  with  maritime  employment,  and  that  we  should  not  here  bind 
that  conference  by  a  resolution  of  this  conference. 

I  regret  that  Mr.  Rowell  withdrew  his  proposal  in  this  matter.  I 
would  have  voted  for  that.  Now  I  have  no  other  recourse  than  to 
vote  against  the  whole  draft,  if  no  change  is  made  in  this  very  im¬ 
portant  point. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  we  now  have  to  vote  on  the 
draft  convention,  not  finally,  but  in  order  to  refer  it  as  amended  to 
the  committee  on  drafting.  The  committee  on  drafting  will  then 
bring  it  to  completion  and  it  will  be  returned  to  the  conference  to 
be  finally  voted  on  and  passed  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds  in  con¬ 
formity  with  the  standing  orders. 

I  shall  put  the  temporary  adoption  of  the  proposal  to  a  vote.  All 
those  in  favor  of  adopting  it  please  raise  their  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

Those  opposed  please  raise  their  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

The  motion  is  carried  64  to  1.  [Applause.] 

We  now  have  to  consider  the  following  motion  proposed  by  Mr. 
Jouhaux  and  Mr.  Baldesi: 

The  conference  declares  that  in  no  case  shall  the  wages  of  workers  be  reduced  by 
specific  reason  of  the  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week. 
This  is  proposed  in  order  that  the  various  conditions  existing  in  certain  industries 
and  allowed  by  this  convention  to  stand  may  not  be  made  worse  by  reason  of  any 
lower  rate  of  wages  imposed  on  workers 

Mr.  Jouhaux  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  want  to  take  up  the  time  of 
this  conference.  I  simply  wish  to  show  in  a  few  words  the  impor¬ 
tance  of  this  amendment,  which  may  seem  insignificant  in  the 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


129 


eyes  of  some.  It  seems  difficult  not  to  vote  for  the  resolution  which 
is  submitted,  the  more  so  as  it  does  not  affect  the  convention,  and  as 
it  is  only  the  expression  of  a  wish  which  we  would  like  to  have 
unanimously  expressed  by  the  conference. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  certain  workers’  delegates  came  to 
this  conference  backed  by  legislation  on  the  8-hour  day  and  the 
48-hour  week  far  superior,  from  the  point  of  view  of  social  reform, 
to  that  recommended  by  the  convention  for  universal  application. 
Now,  it  may  be  that  when  they  return  to  their  respective  countries 
advantage  will  be  taken  of  this  convention  not  to  withdraw  the 
advantages  gained  in  the  decrease  of  the  number  of  working  hours, 
hut  to  demand  a  decrease  in  the  wages  under  one  form  or  another 
of  these  same  workers  in  these  same  countries  by  alleging  the  neces¬ 
sary  equality  in  the  cost  of  production. 

Do  not  forget  that  the  convention  gives  to  certain  large  industrial 
countries  the  right  to  allow  56  hours  per  week  in  iron  and  steel 
industries  when  such  countries  have  labor,  ore.  and  coal;  and  that 
in  certain  other  countries,  such  as  Italy,  the  48-hour  week  obtains 
in  these  industries,  though  these  same  countries  lack  coal  and  ore. 
As  a  result,  there  is  a  flagrant  inequality  in  the  development  of 
these  industries,  and  the  conference  must  not  overlook  it.  That  is 
our  reason  for  asking  the  conference,  which  this  time  has  been 
unable  to  determine  conditions  rationally  according  to  which 
industries  the  world  over  should  be  developed  on  an  equal  footing, 
to  vote  unanimously  for  the  resolution  we  have  submitted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Moore  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  I  was  wondering,  Mr.  Chairman,  whether 
that  would  in  any  way  conflict  with  the  final  part  of  the  report  of 
the  commission.  -We  have  dealt  with  the  draft  convention,  but 
there  are  also  two  resolutions  which  were  passed  by  the  commission 
in  its  report,  and,  I  take  it,  have  got  to  be  dealt  with  by  this  con¬ 
ference.  I  find  that  a  resolution  agreed  to  and  submitted  by  the 
commission  reads  pretty  nearly  the  same  as  the  proposal  by  Mr. 
Jouhaux,  and  I  was  wanting  to  know  from  you  as  to  what  position 
this  conference  was  in — whether  we  were  ignoring  the  latter  part  of 
the  commission’s  report,  or  if  we  were  going  to  take  it,  in  which 
event  it  would  be  nonessential  to  take  the  resolution  as  submitted 
by  Mr.  Jouhaux  and  Mr.  Baldesi.  If  we  are  dealing  with  this,  I 
would  like  to  speak  one  moment  on  it. 

Are  we  to  deal  with  this? 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Yes. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  Will  we  take  it  as  dealing  with  Mr. 
Jouhaux’s  motion,  or  the  latter  part  of  the  commission’s  report? 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Which  is  the  resolution? 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  On  page  288  [Provisional  Record]. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  There  are  two? 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  There  are  two  resolutions.  It  is  the 
second  one.  They  cover  pretty  nearly  the  same  wording. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  President  thinks  it  is 
rather  difficult  to  answer  your  question.  It  really  should  be  ad¬ 
dressed  to  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  In  my  opinion  it  would  simply  be,  if 
we  were  dealing  with  the  commission’s  report,  that  Mr.  Jouhaux’s 
would  be  an  amendment  to-that  resolution. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  passed  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  and  then  went 
back  to  the  commission’s  report,  we  would  find  a  conflict  in  having 
to  deal  with  the  subject  matter  of  the  commission’s  report  itself. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  No;  certainly  not. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy).  No,  no. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  I  may  suggest  to  Mr.  Jouhaux  that  he 
withdraw  it  until  we  have  completed  the  commission’s  report. 
Then,  if  he  thinks  it  essential,  he  might  introduce  it,  with  your 
permission,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  No,  no.  He  has  only  to  vote  on  the 
resolutions  following  the  report. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  That  is  quite  satisfactory. 

With  that  in  view  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  want  to  take  this  op¬ 
portunity  to  say  briefly  that  the  resolution  in  the  committee’s  report 


does  not  entirely  meet  with  what  I  think  it  ought  to,  inasmuch  as 
it  deals  with  the  past  and  the  present,  but  does  not  deal  with  the 
future  condition  of  the  workers.  It  states  that  the  conditions  al¬ 
ready  in  operation  or  agreed  on  shall  not  be  interfered  with  and  the 
agreements  and  negotiations  shall  not  be  interfered  with,  but  it  does 
not  state  that  any  better  conditions  which  may  be  asked  for  should 
not  take  place.  I  have  the  assurance  of  the  committee,  however, 
that  that  is  the  spirit  and  the  intention  of  the  resolution,  and  I  want 
to  make  plain  at  this  juncture  that  I  am  entirely  in  harmony  with 
the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Shaw.  I  was  part  of  the  committee,  and 
though  I  have  stated  clearly  that  this  resolution,  in  my  estimation, 
is  not  as  clear  as  it  might  be,  as  part  of  that  committee  I  feel  that  we 
should  support  the  committee’s  report.  A  committee’s  report  at  all 
times  must  be  a  compromise  agreement,  and  therefore  I  am  stating 
clearly  my  position,  but  at  the  same  time  I  am  going  to  vote  for  the 
acceptance  of  the  report  as  the  committee  has  made  it,  and  I  trust 
that  others  will  do  the  same.  I  also  want  to  make  clear  in  saying 
that  there  was  perhaps  no  country  which  led  the  fight  for  some¬ 
thing  different  from  the  entire  report,  including  this  question  of  the 
conditions  of  the  workers,  more  consistently  than  Canada  itself  did. 

But  we  intend  and  we  accept  the  explanation  made  by  Mr.  Shaw, 
that  the  convention  and  anything  that  we  vote  upon  must  be 
accepted  as  a  minimum  and  not  a  maximum  condition.  I  want  to 
assure  this  convention  on  behalf  of  the  workers  of  Canada,  whom  i 
am  representing  at  the  present  time,  that  we  will  endeavor  to  give 
all  the  support  possible  to  the  Government  of  Canada  to  see  that 
the  obligations  of  the  treaty  are  carried  out  to  the  fullest  extent. 
And  I  want  your  permission  simply  to  state  that  we  disassociate 
ourselves  entirely  from  the  declarations  made  by  Mr.  Parsons  on 
behalf  of  the  employers — of  isolation  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
affairs  and  subservience  to  the  United  States.  We  want  to  co¬ 
operate  absolutely  and  to  bear  out  the  statement  of  Mr.  Rowell, 
that  Canada  has  made  obligations,  and  the  workers  on  their  part 
will  fulfill  them.  I  am  appealing  to  you  now  to  give  this  reso¬ 
lution  almost  as  unanimous  a  vote  as  you  did  the  convention 
itself — though  we  may  not  agree  exactly  that  it  covers  all  that  we 
want,  in  the  knowledge  that  it  is  an  agreement  which  the  em¬ 
ployers,  the  Governments,  and  the  workers  have  reached  after 
lengthy  discussion  and  the  fullest  of  argument — so  that  the  results 
of  this  conference  on  the  eight-hour  question  can  go  before  all  the 
countries  of  the  world  as  almost  a  unanimous  declaration,  carrying 
more  weight  than  it  could  if  it  went  merely  as  the  expression  of 
one  or  more  groups  and  not  of  all  the  groups  of  the  convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  the  draft  drawn  up  by  the  com¬ 
mission  mentions  two  draft  resolutions.  The  first  is  that  proposed 
by  Mr.  Barnes,  to  the  effect  that  this  commission  give  sympathetic 
consideration  to  the  distress  of  the  populations  of  the  devastated 
areas.  I  consider  that  this  is  not  a  matter  for  our  concern;  not  only 
the  commission  but  also  the  conference  were  unanimous  on  this 
question. 

The  second  is  as  follows: 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  not  interfere  with  any  better  conditions 
already  in  operation,  or  agreed  upon,  for  all  or  part  of  the  workers  of  any  country. 

Neither  shall  they  interfere  w  ith  any  negotiations  now  pending  in  which  the  work¬ 
ers  are  asking  for  better  conditions  than  the  convention  provides. 

That  is  the  resolution  to  which  Mr.  Moore  alluded.  Is  this  the 
resolution  which  Mr.  Jouhaux  wishes  to  amend? 

Mr.  JOUHAUX.  No.  This  resolution  is  concerned  with  the 
number  of  working  hours,  and  that  which  I  proposed  along  with  Mr. 
Baldesi  is  concerned  with  wages. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  objection  to  our  first  putting 
to  a  vote  the  motion  laid  before  the  commission  by  its  chairman? 

Mr.  JOUHAUX.  None. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  then,  I  shall  put  to  a  vote  the  resolu¬ 
tion  contained  in  the  report  of  the  commission  on  the  eight-hour  day. 
All  those  in  favor  of  adopting  this  motion  please  raise  their  hands. 

[Hands  raised.] 

Unanimously  adopted. 


146*865° — 20 - 9 


130 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


We  now  come  to  the  motion  proposed  by  Mr,  Jouhaux  and  Mr. 
Baldesi. 

Mr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay — remarks  in  Spanish).  As  there  is  no 
interpreter  present,  I  am  going  to  attempt  to  translate  my  remarks 
myself.  First  of  all,  I  must  beg  the  pardon  of  the  French  delegates 
for  using  such  execrable  French.  I  have  just  said  that  I  second  the 
motion  presented  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  and  Mr.  Baldesi,  because  the 
delegation  from  Paraguay  intends  that  incorporation  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  principle  that  human  labor  shall  not  be  considered  as  merchan¬ 
dise  shaii  include  the  principle,  not  only  of  limiting  the  working 
day,  but  also  of  the  minimum  wage  in  the  various  industries.  The 
delegation  from  Paraguay  announces,  in  this  connection,  that  it  is 
going  to  adopt  the  recommendation  that  this  question  be  con¬ 
sidered  at  the  next  conference.  Now,  I  believe  that  it  would  be 
fair  to  prevent  wages  which  have  been  obtained  by  the  Italian 
workers,  for  instance,  in  Italy,  in  conformance  with  ordinary  living 
conditions  in  this  country,  from  being  decreased,  owing  to  the 
change  in  the  length  of  the  working  day.  That  is  the  reason  that 
the  delegation  from  Paraguay  seconds  the  motion  made  by  Mr. 
Jouhaux. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  a  point  of  order.  Under 
the  rules  of  order  which  we  have  adopted,  as  I  recollect  their  terms, 
a  substantive  resolution  can  not  be  dealt  with  by  the  conference 
unless  two  days’  notice  is  given.  Under  these  circumstances, 
I  submit  there  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  discussing  this  resolu¬ 
tion  at  the  present  time,  as  we  can  not  proceed  under  the 
ruies  to  vote  upon  it.  There  is  also  another  objection,  which  I 
think  would  be  equally  fatal,  although  it  is  not  necessary  to  make 
it,  that  is,  that  it  deals  with  a  subject  quite  outside  the  agenda.  If 
this  conference  wishes  to  carry  weight  with  the  Governments  con¬ 
cerned,  it  must  confine  itself  to  matters  covered  by  the  agenda. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  have  no  objection  to  make  to  the 
proposal  of  Mr.  Rowell  that  the  motion  be  distributed  and  read 
before  we  vote  on  it  to-morrow.  This  will  entail  a  small  loss  of  time, 
perhaps,  but  it  is  the  regulation  and  there  is  nothing  to  say.  But  I 
can  not  accept  the  point  of  view  that  the  motion  is  out  of  order  and 
outside  of  the  question  under  discussion.  First  of  all,  the  motion 
contains  no  directions;  it  is  the  expression  of  an  opinion,  a  desire. 
That  is  the  first  point.  The  second  point  is  that  it  is  so  far  from 
being  outside  the  question  that  almost  all  countries  which  have 
passed  an  eight-hour  law  have  adopted  this  provision.  Possibly, 
you  may  say,  this  provision  is  not  of  exceptional  interest,  in  that  it 
does  not  regulate  the  matter,  but  leaves  it  open  to  discussion  before 
legislatures. 

This  provision  simply  has  the  advantage  as  regards  the  laboring 
classes  of  showing  that  the  legislator  has  not  tried  to  reduce  wages  in 
revising  the  number  of  hours  of  work.  He  did  not  attempt  to  deter¬ 
mine  wages;  he  simply  wished  to  state  that,  in  fixing  the  number  of 
hours  of  work,  he  hoped  to  obtain  a  promise  from  the  employers  that 
they  would  not  touch  wages,  and  that  was  all.  Well,  I  repeat  that 
I  do  not  consider  the  question  outside  the  scope  of  the  agenda, 
because  it  has  been  inserted  in  many  laws  regarding  the  eight-hour 
day.  Neither  do  I  think  there  would  be  any  objection  to  distrib¬ 
uting  copies  to-morrow  and  putting  the  question  to  a  vote.  I  am 
convinced,  moreover,  that  those  who  vote  against  it  will  in  fact  be 
in  agreement  with  those  who  vote  in  favor  of  it,  and  that  everybody 
is  of  the  same  opinion  on  this  subject. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Since  Mr.  Rowell  brought  up  the  point  of 
order  his  motion  has  to  be  put.  It  is  in  the  standing  orders  that  the 
motion  must  be  printed  and  copies  circulated.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  authors  of  this  motion  do  not  object  to  suspension  of  this  regu¬ 


lation.  That  is  enough.  Under  these  circumstances  I  move  that 
the  meeting  be  adjourned.  I  do  not  want  anyone  to  accu°e  me  of 
prolonging  the  discussion  to  the  point  of  risking  death  by  starvation. 
I  propose  that  we  meet  this  afternoon  at  2.30. 

The  meeting  is  therefore  adjourned  until  2.30  p.  m. 

The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Amerieo  Balino. 

Dr.  Felipe  Fspil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Michel  I.dvie). 

Mr.  Jules  earlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons 

Mr.  Tom  Moore  (substitute  for  Mr. 
P.  M.  Draper). 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  F.  Stastny  (substitute  for  Mr.  R. 
Tayerle). 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Denmark: 

Mr  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  B .  Dahlgaard  (substitute  for  Mr. 

C.  V.  Bramsnaes). 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio^ 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  A.  Goineau  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Louis  Gudrin). 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  Tom  Shaw  (substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  A.  Cabrini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 


Japan: 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Dr.  R.  Godai  (substitute  for  Mr 
Sanji  Muto). 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr.  Ol* 
Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowlcz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Josd  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykoviteh  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  V.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  DominicL 
Ur.  C4sar  Zumeta. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


131 


NINETEENTH  SESSION— TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER  25,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.45  o’clock  p.  m.,  November  25, 
Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  vice  president  of  the  conference,  presid¬ 
ing. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  being  called  upon  to 
preside  over  the  conference  this  afternoon,  I  hope  that  you  will 
make  my  task  easy  by  keeping  within  the  limits  of  the  discussion  so 
that  the  debate  may  be  carried  on  under  normal  conditions,  without 
too  many  motions  dealing  with  points  of  order.  The  discussion  this 
afternoon  is  of  great  importance,  and  all  necessary  explanations 
should  be  made  clearly  and  not  obscured  by  side  issues.  I  feel  that 
my  task  will  be  rendered  more  easy  by  this  course.  With  this  hope 
I  give  the  floor  to  Mr.  Butler,  the  secretary  general,  who  has  a  com¬ 
munication  to  read. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  to  announce  the  results 
of  the  elections  which  have  taken  place  in  the  three  groups  for 
members  of  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 

In  regard  to  the  Government  delegates,  the  following  letter  has 
been  received  from  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches,  who  is  chairman  of 
the  Government  delegates: 

Sir:  Article  393  of  the  treaty  of  peace  provides  that  of  the  12  members  representing 
the  Governments  on  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  S  should 
be  nominated  by  the  high  contracting  parties  of  chief  industrial  importance,  and  4 
by  the  high  contracting  parties  designated  for  the  purpose  by  the  Government 
delegates  attending  the  conference  itself,  excluding  the  delegates  of  the  8  States 
already  indicated 

I  have  the  honor  to  bring  to  your  notice  and,  through  your  good  offices,  to  the  notice 
of  the  conference,  that  the  delegates  of-  the  States  concerned  met  under  my  chair¬ 
manship  and  after  a  long  and  arduous  discussion  proceeded  to  make  the  required 
election. 

Thirty-six  delegates  from  the  following  countries  attended  the  meeting: 

South  Africa,  Argentina,  Bolivia,  Canada,  Chile,  China,  Cuba,  Colombia,  Czecho¬ 
slovakia,  Denmark,  Ecuador,  Finland,  Greece,  Guatemala,  India,  Nicaragua,  Nor¬ 
way,  Netherlands,  Panama,  Peru,  Poland,  Portugal,  Roumania,  Serbia,  Siam,  Spain, 
Sweden,  Uruguay,  and  Venezuela. 

Delegates  from  the  following  States  took  part  in  the  discussion:  Portugal,  Nether¬ 
lands,  Roumania,  Spain,  India,  Greece,  China,  Czecho- Slovakia,  Sweden,  Norway, 
Poland,  Cuba,  Serbia,  South  Africa. 

Finally,  the  following  four  States  were  chosen  to  be  represented  on  the  governing 
body:  Spain,  Argentina,  Canada,  Poland,  these  countries  obtaining  29,  26, 20,  and  16 
votes,  respectively,  out  of  a  total  of  31  votes. 

Denmark  and  Roumania  each  obtained  9  votes,  Norway  4,  India  3,  Cuba  and 
Sweden  1  each. 

In  the  event  of  the  supreme  council  of  the  League  of  Nationshaving  to  fill  a  vacancy 
in  the  number  of  the  12  States  named  or  elected,  the  Government  delegates  at  the 
meeting  referred  to  above  thought  it  necessary  to  recommend  the  name  of  a  sub¬ 
stitute  member  of  the  governing  body,  who  in  their  opinion  should  be  one  of  the 
States  of  northern  Europe,  and  they  agreed  that  the  State  in  question  should  be 
Denmark. 

The  delegates  of  China  and  India  advanced  reasons  which  should,  in  their  views, 
have  led  to  a  different  choice  being  made,  the  principal  of  these  reasons  being  the 
importance  of  their  united  populations  which  represent  more  than  one-third  of  the 
total  inhabitants  of  the  globe.  The  delegate  of  China  nevertheless  expressly  de¬ 
clared  that  he  made  no  demand  on  behalf  of  his  country.  Further,  the  Indian  dele¬ 
gates,  through  Mr.  Kershaw,  refused  to  take  part  in  the  election,  against  which  they 
protested  and  demanded  that  their  protest  should  be  communicated  to  the  confer¬ 
ence.  They  considered  that  as  the  council  of  the  League  of  Nations  has  not  pro¬ 
nounced  on  the  objections  made  to  the  list  of  the  eight  States  of  chief  industrial 
importance  as  proposed  by  the  organizing  committee,  the  governing  body  could  not 
be  chosen  unless  there  was  complete  unanimity,  which  had  not,  in  fact,  been  secured. 

So  that  the  Government  members  of  the  governing  body  will  be 
nominated  by  the  following  countries:  Belgium,  France,  Great 
Britain,  Italy,  Japan,  Germany,  Switzerland,  Spain,  Argentina, 
Canada,  Poland,  and,  pending  the  appointment  of  the  United  States 
representative,  Denmark. 

The  employers’  nominees  are: 

Sir  Allan  Smith,  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Gu6rin,  France. 

Mr.  Pirelli,  jr.,  Italy. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier,  Belgium. 

Mr.  Hodacz,  Czecho-Slovakia,  and,  pending  the  appointment  of  a 
representative  of  the  United  States  employers,  Mr.  Schindler,  of 
Switzerland. 


The  workers’  representatives  are: 

Mr.  Jouhaux,  France. 

Mr.  Oudegeest,  Netherlands. 

Mr.  Stuart-Bunning,  Great  Britain. 

Mr.  Lindqvist,  Sweden,  and,  pending  the  appointment  of  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Draper,  of  Canada.  The  sixth 
place  is  to  be  filled  by  a  German  worker,  and  a  telegram  has  been 
sent  to  the  German  Government  inviting  them  to  nominate  a  Gov¬ 
ernment  delegate  and  to  communicate  the  name  of  the  German 
workers’  delegate. 

Dr.  JUSTIZ  (Cuba).  I  shall  speak  only  a  few  minutes  in  the 
Spanish  language,  and  I  have  asked  one  of  the  advisers  of  the  Cuban 
delegation  to  translate  my  remarks.  (Further  remarks  in  Span¬ 
ish.) 

I  wish  to  express  satisfaction  at  the  appointment  of  the  Argentine 
Republic  to  the  International  Labor  Office,  but  I  should  like  in  the 
following  memorandum  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  but  a  single 
place  has  been  assigned  to  the  20  Latin  American  countries  in  this 
body. 

Whereas  the  system  established  for  the  designation  of  the  24  persons  who  are  to 
compose  the  International  Labor  Office,  if  it  is  to  respond  sincerely  to  thehigh  purpose 
of  carrying  out  international  aims,  must  endeavor  to  make  an  equitable  distribution 
of  forces  within  the  organization  and  to  represent,  in  the  most  rational  and  con¬ 
siderate  manner,  all  groups  of  nations,  the  interests  of  which  are  affected  by  the  work 
of  the  International  Labor  Office  on  which  the  action  of  the  future  conferences  will  in 
a  great  measure  depend;  and 

Whereas  that  necessary  equity,  on  the  basis  of  reason  and  discretion,  would  appear 
not  to  have  been  given  sufficient  attention  i  f ,  out  of  the  24  places  in  the  International 
Labor  Office,  23  were  assigned  to  the  European  nations,  to  the  United  States,  and 
Japan,  leaving  only  one  to  be  allotted  to  the  Latin  American  countries:  and 

Whereas  that  distribution,  no  matter  what  motive  or  procedure  brought  it  about, 
is  evidently  against  the  spirit  of  equity  which  should  always  prevail  where  interna¬ 
tional  interests  are  concerned;  and 

Whereas  it  is  important  to  consider  that  this  group  of  20  nations,  occupying 
a  part  of  North  America  and  the  West  Indies  and  Central  and  South  America,  is  a 
factor  of  great  and  growing  importance,  both  in  a  political  and  economic  sense  and 
especially  as  regards  industry  and  labor,  so  thati  t  can  never  be  satisfactorily  explained 
why  all  these  countries  should  together  be  allotted  only  a  single  representative  on  the 
governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office: 

Therefore,  the  undersigned  delegates  from  Latin  American  nations  have  agreed 
to  present  their  views  before  this  International  Labor  Conference,  and  to  request 
that  the  conference,  by  such  procedure  as  may  seem  fit,  amend  the  injustice  of  allotting 
to  the  group  of  20  Latin  American  countries  only  one  representative  out  of  the  total 
of  24  composing  the  International  Labor  Office,  and  should  there  be  nomeans  of  com¬ 
plying  with  their  request  they  wish  to  make  known  by  this  means  their  disagreement 
with  the  distribution  that  has  been  made. 

This  document  is  signed  by  all  the  representatives  of  the  Latin 
American  countries  present  at  this  conference. 

Dr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  I  have  subscribed  to  the  protest  of  the 
delegates  of  the  Spanish-speaking  countries,  because  I  consider  that 
they  are  absolutely  just  in  their  complaint. 

The  honorable  Mr.  Rowell,  one  of  the  committee,  said  that  we 
must  not  make  this  conference  a  European  affair,  but  an  inter¬ 
national  affair.  Of  120  members  that  have  composed  the  committees 
to  study  the  different  matters  of  this  international  conference,  100 
have  been  Europeans;  2  have  been  from  the  Spanish-American 
countries,  and  the  balance  have  been  divided  among  the  rest  of  the 
world.  In  the  body  that  we  are  now  selecting  20  members  are  from 
European  countries,  3  members  from  non-European  countries,  and 
1  member  from  the  20  Latin  American  countries.  If  these  things 
happen  while  we  are  in  America,  what  is  going  to  happen  when  we 
have  the  next  meeting  in  Europe?  Twenty-four  members  will  be 
Europeans,  and  the  120  of  the  committees  will  be  Europeans  also. 
Mr  Rowell  was  absolutely  right  when  he  remarked  that  this  confer¬ 
ence  was  an  international  conference,  not  a  European  conference. 
That  is  the  reason  why  I  have  subscribed  to  the  protest  of  all  the 
Spanish-speaking  countries. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  do  not  think  that  the  conference  can 
discuss  the  question  just  raised,  since  the  elections  took  place  under 


132 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


the  sponsorship  of  each  group.  Now  that  the  protests  have  been 
voiced,  I  think  that  we  can  pass  on  to  a  consideration  of  the  agenda, 
which  calls  for  the  question  of  unemployment. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  I  move  a  closure  of  the  debate. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Prof.  Mahaim,  of  Belgium,  has  moved  a 
closure  of  the  debate.  I  shall  consult  the  assembly  to  ascertain 
whether  this  motion  is  accepted.  Those  in  favor  of  closure,  please 
manifest  it  by  raising  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed,  please  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  carried  55  to  16. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  desire  you  to 
note  that  I  intend  to  lodge  an  objection  against  the  method  of  electing 
members  of  the  governing  board.  My  letter  is  being  typed  now  and 
will  be  submitted  to  the  secretary  general  in  due  course. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Reserving  the  reading  of  Mr.  Crawford’s 
letter  until  later,  I  think  that  the  conference  should  now  pass  on  to 
an  examination  of  the  question  on  the  agenda,  i.  e.,  the  question  of 
unemployment;  and  if  the  conference  is  of  the  same  opinion,  I  shall 
recognize  Mr.  Max  Lazard,  who  is  the  reporter  of  this  question. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  lodge  a 
similar  objection  to  that  which  Mr.  Crawford  has  entered. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Max  Lazard  is  recognized. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  on  behalf  of  the 
commission  on  unemployment,  I  have  the  honor  to  lay  before  you  a 
report  on  the  two  distinct  problems  which  were  referred  to  this 
commission  for  examination.  The  first  of  these  problems  was  point 
2  of  the  agenda,  and  was  thus  headed:  “Preventing  or  providing 
against  unemployment.”  The  second  subject  was  a  motion  pre¬ 
sented  by  Mr.  Baldesi  calling  for  a  report  on  the  principle  of  equality 
of  treatment,  on  the  basis  of  reciprocity  between  foreign  and  native 
workers.  At  its  session  of  November  3,  the  conference  referred  this 
second  question  to  the  commission  on  unemployment  in  preference 
to  designating,  as  Mr.  Baldesi  requested,  a  special  committee  of 
seven  members  for  this  purpose.  In  so  doing  it  pointed  out,  and 
indeed  this  had  been  explicitly  stated,  that  there  was  a  certain  con¬ 
nection  between  the  question  raised  by  the  Baldesi  motion  and  the 
question  of  unemployment,  a  connection,  however,  which  does  not 
make  the  two  subjects  overlap — nobody  claims  that,  far  from  it — 
it  is  simply  a  connection  up  to  a  certain  point. 

In  fact,  reciprocity  of  treatment  in  favor  of  foreign  workers  must 
apply  particularly  to  foreign  workers  out  of  employment,  and  con¬ 
sequently  protection  of  foreign  workers  out  of  employment  comes 
under  protection  of  unemployed  workers. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  whole  category  of  workers  who  per¬ 
haps  are  not  “stricto  sensu”  out  of  employment  but  whose  position 
resembles  that  of  the  unemployed;  these  are  workers  who  are  on  the 
point  of  emigrating  for  the  sake  of  seeking  their  fortune  and  looking 
for  work  in  another  country.  As  soon  as  they  make  up  their  bundles 
to  go  away,  they  are  no  longer  employed  workers,  but,  rather,  people 
off  in  search  of  their  living.  During  their  period  of  travel  they  are 
not  employed  workers,  but,  rather,  persons  whose  position  is  similar 
to  that  of  an  unemployed  worker  who  is  traveling  the  roads  of  his 
native  country  in  order  to  find  work.  When  they  have  crossed  the 
frontier  of  the  country  in  which  they  intend  to  settle  down  or  to 
work — that  is,  when  they  have  been  legally  admitted  into  this  other 
country  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  land — there  is  a  period 
during  which  they  can  hardly  be  classed  absolutely  as  unemployed 
but  during  which  their  condition  is  very  close  to  that.  They  must 
look  around  to  see  in  what  direction  they  have  the  best  chances 
of  being  taken  on. 

From  these  two  angles,  the  status  of  unemployed  foreign  workers 
in  any  country  and  the  special  problems  of  emigrant  workers  during 
the  period  of  transition  which  separates  them  from  their  former 
employment  and  their  new  employment — from  these  two  angles,  I 
say,  the  question  raised  by  the  Baldesi  motion  did  bear  relation  to 


the  question  of  unemployment.  Without  doubt  it  was  for  that 
reason  that  the  conference  referred  the  consideration  of  this  question 
to  the  commission  on  unemployment.  However,  the  two  questions 
not  being  identical  and  not  overlapping,  the  commission  on  unem¬ 
ployment  preferred  to  make  two  distinct  reports,  or,  rather,  to 
present  two  distinct  recommendations  contained  in  a  single  report 
in  the  interest  of  lucidity  and  comprehensiveness  in  order  that  you 
may  judge  of  their  general  significance. 

I  shall  present  these  two  groups  of  conclusions  as  we  presented 
them  in  our  report;  i.  e.,  separately:  First,  the  series  of  proposals 
dealing  with  the  struggle  against  unemployment  (including  what 
in  this  connection  has  to  do  especially  with  foreign  workers);  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  proposal  concerning  the  treatment  to  be 
granted  in  general  to  foreign  workers,  or  the  question  raised  by  the 
Baldesi  motion. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  read  the  report  to  you;  you  have  all  seen 
it.  I  desire  only  to  give  you  the  spirit  of  it,  to  single  out  the  essential 
principles  in  such  a  way  that  you  may  know  where  you  stand  when  it 
comes  to  taking  a  vote. 

As  regards  the  question  of  unemployment,  which  has  been  referred 
to  the  committee  at  full  length  and  with  all  its  complications,  we 
have  been  very  careful  to  remain  practical,  to  lay  before  you  only 
proposals  relating  to  things  which  are  possible,  immediately  pos¬ 
sible,  and  to  prepare  for  the  future  in  so  far  as  one  can  prepare  for  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  were  desirous  of  avoiding  everything  which 
might  resemble  platonic  vows  or  affirmation  of  principle  which 
would  not  advance  the  struggle  against  unemployment,  the  special 
form  of  effort  with  which  you  are  justly  concerned.  In  order  to  put 
our  program  into  execution,  and  at  the  same  time  taking  into  con¬ 
sideration  the  complexity  of  the  subject,  we  have  been  obliged  to 
make  use  of  all  the  methods  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  committee; 
i.  e.,  (1)  draft  conventions,  (2)  draft  recommendations,  (3)  draft 
resolutions. 

You  know  the  difference  between  these  various  forms  of  action. 
With  regard  to  the  resolutions,  I  will  only  remind  you  that  we 
look  upon  them  essentially  as  being  instructions  addressed  to  the 
governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  for  its  guidance. 
This  is  in  conformity  with  a  paragraph  in  article  396  of  the  peace 
treaty,  which  says  in  a  general  way  that  the  Labor  Office  shall  receive, 
in  addition  to  the  powers  indicated  in  the  present  article,  such  other 
powers  and  functions  as  the  conference  shall  consider  fit  to  confer 
upon  it.  Such  are  the  resolutions  that  we  have  presented;  such  is 
their  spirit. 

Secondly,  we  presented  resolutions  concerning  an  item  to  be 
included  within  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference.  Here  again 
we  followed  strictly  the  text  of  article  402  of  the  peace  treaty,  which 
provides  that  any  question  shall  be  placed  on  the  agenda  of  the 
following  session  if  it  receives  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  votes. 

In  the  report  which  we  brought  in  these  three  classes  of  proposals 
are  presented  to  you  from  two  distinct  angles:  (1)  The  logical 
angle,  (2)  the  judicial  angle.  It  is  on  the  proposals  grouped  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  judicial  nature  that  you  will  have  judgment  to 
pronounce — on  the  proposals  called  conventions,  recommendations, 
and  resolutions.  But  in  order  to  explain  the  bearing  of  the  three 
proposals,  to  make  you  grasp  their  utility,  I  consider  it  necessary  to 
lay  before  you  the  very  brief  observations  which  I  have  to  offer.  I 
am  following  a  logical  order,  bringing  together  the  proposals  according 
to  their  subject;  and  you  will  note  particularly  that  my  intention 
has  been  to  classify  the  subjects  according  to  their  importance.  You 
will  see  exactly  what  we  think  we  ought  to  propose  as  a  remedy  for 
unemployment. 

I  shall  begin  with  proposals  regarding  placement  of  workers. 

There  is  no  need,  in  an  assembly  of  specialists  like  this,  for  me 
to  remind  you  of  the  importance  acquired  by  public  employment 
agencies  in  various  countries  and  of  the  very  great  interest  attached 
to  them  in  every  country,  an  interest  which  attaches  also  to  the 
development  of  all  these  public  employment  bureaus. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


133 


We  were  desirous  of  giving  as  strong  an  impetus  as  possible  to  the 
development  of  these  institutions,  and  for  that  reason  we  propose 
an  article  of  a  draft  convention,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  have  the 
States  which  shall  ratify  the  convention,  if  they  have  not  already 
done  so,  create  in  their  respective  countries  a  ramified  system  of 
free  public  employment  exchanges.  We  laid  down  a  second  point, 
namely,  that  these  free  public  employment  exchanges  shall  func¬ 
tion  with  the  support  of  consulting  committees  of  employers  and 
workers,  who  shall  give  advice  on  the  operation  of  these  exchanges 
to  the  competent  authorities;  in  fact,  we  laid  down  the  principle 
that  these  national  systems  of  public  employment  agencies  should' 
be  coordinated  through  the  medium  of  the  International  Labor 
Office.  Such  is  the  physiognomy  of  the  article  of  the  convention 
aiming  at  the  development  of  networks  of  free  public  employment 
agencies  in  the  different  countries. 

To  this  we  added  two  recommendations.  One  concerns  the  pre¬ 
cautions  to  be  taken  against  employment  agencies  which  carry  on 
their  business  for  profit — employment  bureaus  which  carry  on  the 
trade  of  finding  employment  for  people.  You  know  that  in  Europe 
especially  these  agencies  are  very  often  merely  a  means  of  exploiting 
workers;  and  we  recommend  to  the  States  that  they  keep  such 
institutions  under  the  strictest  surveillance,  and  even  as  far  as  pos¬ 
sible  suppress  them.  In  any  case  do  not  let  them  function  except 
under  a  system  of  licensing. 

Finally,  we  have  a  second  recommendation  which  aims  at  a  par¬ 
ticularly  important  point,  one  which  seems  necessary,  especially  in 
the  period  just  beginning;  to  wit,  the  recruiting  of  workers  in  one 
country  to  be  employed  in  another  country.  It  is  probable  that  as 
a  consequence  of  the  upheaval  caused  by  the  war,  the  search  for 
foreign  labor,  by  certain  countries  involved  in  and  particularly  tried 
by  the  war,  will  be  undertaken  on  a  large  scale,  and  we  recommend 
to  the  States  that  they  take  precautions  before  permitting  this 
recruiting  of  large  numbers  of  workers  in  one  another’s  territory. 

We  believe  that  this  collective  recruiting  ought  not  to  be  author¬ 
ized  without  a  previous  general  understanding  between  the  coun¬ 
tries  interested,  and  without  consulting  the  organizations  of  employ¬ 
ers  and  workers  in  the  industries  concerned,  since  these  organiza¬ 
tions  alone  can  say  whether  it  is  in  the  general  interest  that  workers 
be  displaced  as  is  proposed. 

Such  are  the  recommendations  on  the  placement  of  workers. 

Next,  I  shall  take  up  the  second  remedy  for  unemployment — 
unemployment  insurance. 

Under  this  heading  we  propose  three  means:  First,  we  offer  a 
recommendation  of  a  general  nature  in  favor  of  as  early  an  establish¬ 
ment  as  possible,  in  each  country,  of  some  kind  of  unemployment 
insurance,  whether  it  follow  the  State  system  established  by  Eng¬ 
land  in  1912,  or  a  system  of  subvention  for  private  concerns  of  the 
type  knowu  as  the  Ghent  system.  Secondly,  apart  from  this  first 
proposal,  we  have  a  resolution  that  the  question  of  embodying  a 
provision  to  the  effect  of  the  above  recommendation  in  a  draft  con¬ 
vention  shall  be  placed  on  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference.  In 
other  words,  we  think  it  is  necessary  to  draw  to  the  attention  of  the 
countries  immediately  the  necessity  for  creating  some  system  of 
unemployment  insurance  in  the  broad  sense  of  the  word.  We  should 
like  the  countries  taking  our  recommendation  into  consideration  to 
establish  systems  where  there  are  none  at  present,  making  it  possible 
at  a  later  session  to  pronounce  a  more  enlightened  judgment  upon 
the  choice  between  the  two  systems  under  consideration.  In  other 
words,  we  think  it  is  essential  to  recommend  one  or  the  other  immedi¬ 
ately,  and  in  a  very  short  time  a  preference  for  one  or  the  other  can  be 
established.  That  is  why  we  make  a  recommendation  on  the  one 
hand  and  a  resolution  on  the  other. 

Finally,  to  this  is  added  an  article  in  a  draft  convention  which 
touches  upon  the  peculiar  question  of  the  treatment  to  be  accorded 
foreign  workers  who  might  find  themselves  unemployed  in  the  coun¬ 
try  where  they  had  been  working.  We  request  that  these  w  rkers,  if 
belonging  from  the  point  of  view  of  nationality  to  a  country  in  which 
unemployment  insurance  is  established  shall  have  the  right,  sub¬ 


ject  to  special  conventions  to  be  passed  between  the  States  interested , 
to  an  indemnity  calculated  upon  a  rate  equal  to  that  in  effect  for 
the  natives  of  the  country  in  which  such  foreigners  are  working. 
That  is  the  system  which  we  have  the  honor  to  lay  before  you  as 
regards  insurance. 

I  come, now  to  a  third  kind  of  measure  against  unemployment. 
This  consists  in  an  attempt  to  distribute  orders  or  to  allocate  work 
carried  on  for  the  public  authorities  in  such  a  way  as  to  take  into 
account  as-far  as  possible  the  fluctuations  of  unemployment  in  gen¬ 
eral,  i.  e.,  fluctuations  due  to  the  free  play  of  economic  activities. 
That  is  a  question  which  has  engaged  the  attention  of  specialists  on 
the  subject  these  many  years. 

This  question  is  one  of  a  better  allocation  as  regards  time  or  locality 
of  purchases  from  public  bodies  in  such'a  way  as  to  counterbalance 
some  way  the  lack  of  private  purchases.  We  found  in  this  plan  the 
only  form  of  prevention  of  unemployment  capable  of  giving  imme¬ 
diate  and  practical  results.  We  do  not  think  that  the  States  can  bind 
themselves  by  conventions  on  this  subject;  first,  because  that  is 
not  necessary  from  the  point  of  view  of  international  competition, 
next  because  the  conditions  under  which  contracts  from  public 
bodies  are  executed  are  too  diverse  for  an  international  convention 
to  be  able  to  regulate  the  form  of  these  contracts.  But  we  be¬ 
lieve  that  there  is  certainly  subject  for  recommendation  there. 
Those  are  the  three  kinds  of  practical  measures  which  we  propose 
against  unemployment. 

To  this  is  added  a  third  recommendation,  one  concerning  the  data 
and  statistics  necessary  to  strengthen  and  make  more  successful  the 
struggle  against  unemployment.  It  appeared  first  to  the  Organizing 
Committee  who  prepared  for  this  conference,  then  to  your  committee, 
that  the  social  phenomenon  of  unemployment  had  to  be  studied 
with  particular  care  and  attention.  The  phenomenon  is  very  com¬ 
plex;  it  can  not  be  said  as  yet  precisely  on  what  causes  it  depends. 
There  are  connected  phenomena  which  it  would  be  interesting  to 
study  together  with  the  lack  of  employment  itself.  There  are  sta¬ 
tistics  concerning  the  institutions  which  are  fighting  against  unem¬ 
ployment  which  may  be  very  instructive  from  the  standpoint  of 
prevention  of  unemployment,  of  acquaintance  with  the  laws  of  the 
phenomenon.  Well,  we  hope  that  this  material  may  be  collected  as 
rapidly  and  as  completely  as  possible. 

Hence  two  proposals  are  made:  A  proposal  of  a  convention  by 
virtue  of  which  the  States  would  engage  to  supply  the  International 
Labor  Office  in  the  shortest  space  of  time  with  all  the  information 
not  yet  collected.  This  engagement  which  the  States  would  under¬ 
take  is  one  which  is,  you  may  say,  implied  in  the  very  fact  of 
the  creation  of  the  International  Labor  Office  by  the  will  of  the 
States.  But  there  are  rigid  niceties  in  the  draft  convention  which, 
I  think,  will  much  facilitate  the  task  of  the  director  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Office  in  assembling  the  information  in  question.  The 
States  will  undertake  a  formal  obligation  to  supply  the  international 
center  with  all  necessary  information.  As  the  nature  of  the  informa¬ 
tion  to  be  collected  is  not  yet  fully  elucidated,  we  propose  a  resolu¬ 
tion  by  virtue  of  which  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  would  appoint  a  special  commission  charged  with  the 
study  of  exactly  what  information  would  be  most  useful  to  have. 

That  is  a  question  much  more  complex  than  one  would  imagine  at 
first;  it  is  a  question  of  the  economic  signs  which  might  enlighten 
the  Governments  on  the  causes  of  unemployment  and  on  its  fluctua¬ 
tions,  and  which  would  perhaps  permit  us  to  foresee  these  fluctua¬ 
tions  to  a  certain  extent.  That  is  a  kind  of  problem  which  in  our 
opinion  can  not  be  cleared  up  without  having  been  deeply  studied 
vby  a  special  commission.  Those  propositions  as  regards  unemploy¬ 
ment  are  seen  from  a  purely  national  angle,  if  I  may  say  so. 

There-  remains  a  fifth  proposal  relating  to  the  protection  of  the 
migratory  unemployed  workers  of  whom  I  spoke  at  the  beginning 
of  this  statement,  those  persons  who,  at  the  time  they  leave  their 
own  country,  while  they  are  traveling  and  at  the  time  of  their 
arrival  in  a  foreign  land,  are  in  a  condition  very  similar  to  that  of  the 
unemployed. 


134 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Now,  we  can  not  ignore  these  migratory  workers.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  can  not  deal  with  them  in  disregard  of  the  sovereignty 
either  of  their  native  country  or  of  the  country  to  which  they  are 
proceeding.  It  is  not  a  question  of  that.  The  national  sovereignty 
of  each  country,  particularly  as  regards  its  emigration  laws  or  its 
immigration  laws,  remains  intact.  It  would  be  a  question  of  study¬ 
ing  how,  with  due  regard  to  the  sovereign  rights  of  these  States, 
to  assure  the  position  of  these  unfortunate  persons  in  a  more  effect¬ 
ive  way  than  we  have  been  able  thus  far  to  do.  Well,  on  this 
point,  too,  the  organizing  committee  had  set  us  upon  the  way;  it  had 
proposed  the  creation  of  an  international  commission  charged  with 
the  study  of  the  question. 

We  renew  the  proposition;  we  make  it  precise;  we  say  that  the 
commission  must  submit  its  report  to  the  next  meeting  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  and  we  add  to  it  a  request  for  the  creation  in  the  International 
Labor  Office  of  a  special  section,  charged  with  the  administrative 
study  of  this  question  and  with  the  preparation  of  solutions  of  it. 
In  our  report  a  whole  series  of  questions  was  raised  which  concerned 
the  effective  protection  to  be  granted  those  workers  during  their 
period  of  displacement,  in  default  of  an  effective  national  protection. 
Now,  the  creation  of  this  section  is  what  we  ask  of  you,  in  the  hope 
that  you  will  approve  its  studying  the  suggestions  relating  to  this 
way  of  protecting  migratory  workers. 

The  last  point  that  I  have  to  discuss  is  that  of  reciprocity.  Gentle¬ 
men,  I  have  only  a  word  more  to  add.  It  is  with  regard  to  the  atti¬ 
tude  which  we  adopted  toward  the  Baldesi  motion.  I  shall  recall 
to  you  the  origin  of  this  motion.  On  the  4th  of  June,  1919,  the 
Labor  Commission,  which  was  functioning  as  a  consulting  committee 
of  the  peace  conference  at  Paris,  had  presented  to  the  peace  con¬ 
ference  a  resolution  dealing  with  a  clause  to  be  introduced  into  the 
treaty  which  was  in  course  of  preparation.  According  to  that 
clause,  the  workers  of  the  allied  and  associated  powers  who  should  be 
admitted  to  the  territory  of  the  countries  with  whom  the  peace  treaty 
was  being  negotiated  would  enjoy,  together  with  their  families,  the 
rights  and  privileges  accorded  native  workers  by  labor  and  social 
laws  as  well  as  the  conditions  governing  them,  provided  that  the 
said  allied  and  associated  powers  could  on  their  part  guarantee 
reciprocal  treatment. 

This  resolution  addressed  to  the  peace  conference  on  the  4th  of  June 
by  the  Labor  Commission  was  not  examined  until  the  20th  of  August, 
when  the  conference  decided  to  refer  it  for  examination  to  the  con¬ 
ference  at  Washington.  It  was  this  proposal  that  Mr.  Baldesi  took 
up  again  in  his  motion. 

What  we  did  was  to  try  to  formulate  a  general  rule,  a  principle 
which  should  cover  this  delicate  question  of  reciprocity  of  treatment 
granted  to  foreign  workers  by  the  different  countries  interested,  a 
rule  under  which  the  countries  would  make  special  conventions 
according  to  the  different  domains  of  social  policy  that  it  would  be 
necessary  to  consider. 

The  draft  convention  which  we  are  proposing  to  you  follows 
almost  textually  the  idea  contained  in  the  resolution  of  the  Labor 
Commission.  It  is  not  a  formula  capable  of  immediate  application, 
but  it  is  an  engagement  that  the  countries  would  undertake  to  treat 
foreign  workers  in  a  manner  corresponding  to  the  suggestions  con¬ 
tained  in  paragraph  8  of  article  427  of  the  peace  treaty.  You 
know  that  article  427  points  out  the  methods  and  principles  the 
observance  of  which  appears  essential  to  assure  the  comfort  of 
the  workers,  the  moral,  intellectual,  and  material  comfort  of  the 
workers.  Well,  among  these  principles  there  is  the  following  in 
paragraph  8: 

The  standard  set  by  law  In  each  country  with  respect  to  the  conditions  of  labor 
should  have  due  regard  to  the  equitable  economic  treatment  of  all  workers  lawfully 
resident  therein. 

We  must  put  ourselves  in  a  position  to  grant  this  equitable 
economic  treatment.  The  rule  is  formulated  here  only  as  a  desidera¬ 
tum;  we  thought  that  we  ought  not  to  waste  any  time  in  trans¬ 
forming  it  into  a  principle  binding  the  various  States.  Hence  the 


draft  convention  which  we  have  laid  before  you  as  a  result  of  the 
Baldesi  motion. 

All  in  all,  gentlemen,  you  have,  as  you  have  seen  by  the  report, 
two  conventions:  One  draft  convention  against  unemployment,  in 
three  articles,  comprising  the  article  on  statistics,  the  article  on 
finding  situations,  and  the  article  on  the  reciprocity  of  the  insurance 
system;  a  draft  recommendation  in  four  articles,  two  recommenda¬ 
tions  dealing  with  finding  situations,  one  recommendation  dealing 
with  insurance,  and  one  recommendation  concerning  public  works. 

Finally,  you  have  four  resolutions,  three  of  which  give  instruc¬ 
tions  to  the  International  Labor  Office  on  the  way  in  which  its  work 
should  be  carried  on,  while  the  fourth  deals  with  the  necessity  for 
including  within  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference  a  draft  conven¬ 
tion  on  insurance  against  unemployment. 

Such  are  the  resolutions  which  we  adopted.  Some  will  perhaps 
find  them  insufficient,  while  others  will  surely  find  them  too  com¬ 
plicated  and  too  ambitious.  That,  I  hope,  will  be  a  proof  that  the 
committee  kept  to  a  proper  mean  and  that  you  will  be  willing  to 
refer  our  propositions  to  the  drafting  committee  with  a  view  to  giving 
them  their  final  form.  [Applause.] 

I  request  permission  of  the  president  to  correct  a  printer’s  error 
which  has  crept  into  the  French  text  of  the  draft  convention,  deal¬ 
ing  with  reciprocity  of  treatment.  The  French  text  as  printed  runs 
as  follows: 

Accorderont  le  b<5nefice  des  lois  et  rdglements  de  protection  ouvriers,  ainsi  que 
la  puissance  du  droit  dissociation  dans  les  limites  de  ligaliW. 

It  should  read,  “dans  les  limites  de  la  legalitd”  (i.  e.,  the  right 
of  lawful  organization).  It  is  just  a  printer’s  error,  but  we  were 
desirous  of  being  precise. 

The  PRESIDENT.  After  the  reporter,  I  think  it  is  proper  to 
give  the  floor  to  Mr.  Baldesi,  who  has  made  a  minority  report  on  the 
same  question.  Granted  that  there  has  as  yet  been  no  general  dis¬ 
cussion  on  this  question,  it  is  proper  that  the  two  ideas  which  were 
called  forth  within  the  commission  should  be  elaborated  before  we 
begin  the  general  discussion. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  I  am  not  going  to 
oppose  the  report  introduced  by  the  majority.  During  the  debate 
on  several  points  I  was  in  disagreement  with  them,  and  raised 
several  points,  but  on  the  whole  I  accept  the  proposals  that  are 
made  in  the  majority  report. 

However,  I  wish  to  point  out  that  the  majority  of  the  commission 
did  not  admit  the  relation  that  exists  between  unemployment  and 
the  question  of  the  distribution  of  raw  materials.  I  wish  to  say 
that  I  believe  that  one  very  fundamental  question  and  one  of  the 
causes  of  unemployment  is  precisely  the  question  of  the  lack  of 
raw  materials  in  certain  countries. 

I  might  say  that  the  commission  did  not  wish  to  go  into  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  causes  of  unemployment,  and  limited  its  efforts  to  making 
very  mild  and  minimum  proposals  for  dealing  with  unemployment 
when  it  once  exists. 

It  is  very  easy  to  say  that  men  are  out  of  work  because  there  is  no 
work  to  be  had,  but  the  fact  that  there  is  no  work  is  very  frequently 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  industries  have  not  got  the  raw  material  on 
which  to  work,  and  this  leads  either  to  the  closing  down  of  the 
factories  or  to  short  time  in  the  factories. 

I  certainly  do  not  expect  this  International  Labor  Conference 
to  be  able  to  solve  or  suggest  a  solution  for  this  problem.  I  do  not 
ask  them  to  pass  any  decisions  on  how  it  should  be  solved,  but  I 
think  that  it  certainly  should  call  attention  to  this  question  which 
is  largely  the  base  of  the  whole  question  of  unemployment. 

There  will  certainly  be  people  here  who  will  object  to  this  ques¬ 
tion,  saying  that  during  the  war  we  had  a  sample  of  government 
control  of  raw  materials,  and  that  it  worked  to  the  injury  of  industry 
and  of  commerce,  but  I  would  point  out  that  there  was  not  one 
of  the  countries  that  went  in  for  such  control  which  did  not  have 
to  do  it  so  as  to  avoid  the  evils  that  would  have  resulted  through 
speculation  and  individual  interests  in  governing  this  matter. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


135 


I  therefore  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  body  to  this  question. 
I  do  not  propose  to  do  more  than  that.  In  this  connection  I  have 
also  brought  up  in  my  proposal  the  question  of  ocean  carriage.  The 
relation  of  questions  of  ocean  carriage  and  transportation  to  unem¬ 
ployment  is  a  very  grave  question.  It  was  not  spontaneously  that 
I  brought  this  matter  up,  but  my  attention  was  called  to  the  fact 
that  here  in  America,  some  years  ago,  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  had  its  attention  called  to  the  importance  of  the  effect  of 
suddenly  fluctuating  and  uncertain  ocean  carriage  rates  on  the 
cost  of  raw  materials  and  the  subsequent  reaction  of  these  on  in¬ 
dustry.  This  is  a  point  which  is  worthy  of  grave  consideration. 

If  the  delegate  of  the  United  States  to  the  International  Intitutes 
of  Agriculture,  Mr.  David  Lubin,  was  compelled,  in  his  study  of 
the  factors  affecting  the  price  fixing  on  the  staples  of  agriculture, 
to  study  this  question  of  ocean  carriage  and  its  influence  on  those 
prices,  how  can  we  who  are  studying  these  complex  industrial 
questions  which  result  in  unemployment  fail  to  recognize  the  need 
of  studying  this  question  also  as  to  its  effect  on  raw  materials  and 
its  reaction  on  unemployment? 

The  arguments  that  could  be  brought  forward  to  prove  the  con¬ 
nection  between  such  a  question  as  that  of  the  distribution  of  raw 
materials  and  the  cost  of  the  ocean  carriage  on  the  same,  and  the 
reflex  action  on  industries  and  unemployment,  are  so  self-evident 
that  I  will  not  take  up  much  of  your  time  in  trying  to  demonstrate 
the  proposition.  I  do  not  ask  to  have  a  solution  or  a  suggestion  put 
forward  here  as  to  how  this  question  is  to  be  dealt  with ;  I  do  not 
make  a  motion  to  that  effect,  but  I  do  make  a  motion  that  the  at¬ 
tention  of  the  League  of  Nations  be  called  by  this  conference  to 
this  very  grave  question  in  its  bearing  on  unemployment,  and  for 
this  purpose  I  offer  the  following  motion : 

The  International  Labor  Conference,  considering  that  the  question  of  unem¬ 
ployment  is  strictly  connected  with  the  distribution  of  raw  material  and  with  the 
question  of  the  cost  of  ocean  carriage  for  the  same,  and  considering  that  this  question 
can  not  be  the  subject  of  a  study  by  this  body  itself,  refers  it  to  the  League  of  Nations 
and  recommends  that  it  take  it  up  for  study  and  solution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  we  have  heard  a  full  account  of  the  report 
of  the  majority,  and  after  the  explanations  given  by  Mr.  Baldesi, 
the  connection  between  the  two  reports  evidently  having  been 
proven,  it  is  proper  to  begin  the  general  discussion,  and  I  therefore 
recognize  Mr.  Blomjous,  of  Holland,  the  first  speaker  on  the  list. 

Mr.  BLOMJOUS  (Netherlands).  Will  you  not  permit  me  to  say  a 
few  words  about  Mr.  Lazard’s  report,  the  minority  report,  and  the 
motion  offered  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  the  Italian  workmen’s  delegate,  ask¬ 
ing  that  the  conference  call  the  attention  of  the  League  of  Nations 
to  the  proper  distribution  of  the  raw  materials  of  industry  as  a 
means  of  preventing  unemployment,  which  sounds,  as  it  stands, 
rather  harmless. 

As  a  member  of  the  commission  on  unemployment  and  of  the  first 
subcommittee  which  dealt  specially  with  the  subject,  I  feel  it 
my  duty  to  explain  to  this  labor  conference  that  this  simple  request 
has  been  moderated  only  in  the  last  few  days.  Mr.  Baldesi  origi¬ 
nally  offered  a  motion  in  the  full  committee  that  this  conference 
should  call  the  attention  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  the  bearing  of 
the  proper  distribution  of  raw  materials  on  the  prevention  of  unem¬ 
ployment  and  the  desirability  of  the  establishment  of  a  permanent 
commission  to  insure  their  equitable  distribution  between  the 
several  countries.  In  the  second  part  of  his  motion  Mr.  Baldesi 
asked  the  same  commission  to  regulate  ocean  freight  rates  on  staple 
products. 

The  full  committee  on  unemployment  did  not  agree  upon  this 
motion,  considering  that  this  question  was  not  within  the  scope  of 
the  labor  conference.  Mr.  Baldesi,  after  this  decision,  reserved  his 
right  to  go  with  the  motion  before  the  full  commission.  In  fact,  a 
minority  report  that  has  been  distributed  to  the  30  members  of  the 
commission  on  unemployment  goes  extensively  into  the  subject  and 
asks  that  the  League  of  Nations  should  consider  the  desirability  of 
the  establishment  of  a  permanent  commission  for  the  distribution 
of  raw  materials  and  another  commission  for  the  control  of  ocean 
freight  rates  on  staple  products. 


The  minority  report  has  changed  front  between  typing  and 
printing  and  the  report  now  offered  to  the  conference  simply  asks 
the  labor  conference  to  call  the  attention  of  the  League  of  Nations  to 
the  proper  distribution  of  the  raw  materials  of  industry  as  a  means 
of  preventing  unemployment. 

The  full  committee  and  Mr.  Baldesi  agreed  not  to  have  discus¬ 
sions  on  the  subject  in  the  commission,  but  that  Mr.  Baldesi  would 
offer  his  minority  report  to  the  conference.  There  is  some  satis¬ 
faction  for  us  in  the  fact  that  Mr.  Baldesi,  who  is  accustomed  to  de¬ 
fend  his  principles  in  his  chivalrous,  eloquent,  strong,  and  often 
effectual  way,  has  wavered  as  regards  the  methods  to  reach  his  aim, 
and  so  far  has  yielded  to  the  arguments  against  them  in  the  first 
subcommittee,  and  this  without  any  further  discussion  than  was 
had  in  the  full  commission. 

Although  I  might  feel  grateful  about  the  change  in  methods,  I  am 
not  satisfied,  because  the  principle,  namely,  that  the  International 
Labor  Conference  should  entangle  itself  in  this  question,  has  been 
fully  maintained  and  the  evil  results  for  the  welfare  of  the  in¬ 
ternational  labor  organization  will  be  the  same  if  the  conference 
should  agree  with  Mr.  Baldesi  to  put  the  question  before  the  League 
of  Nations.  We  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  following  with  keen  interest  the 
proceedings  of  this  first  International  Labor  Conference,  know  that 
this  young  life  is  very  frail,  and  that  those  who  really  want  to  see 
it  grow  and  develop  should  take  the  greatest  care  not  to  introduce 
questions,  especially  in  its  first  life  period,  which  instead  of  strength¬ 
ening  could  easily  cause  the  death  of  the  new  born. 

We  must  not  forget  that  the  international  labor  organization  is  one 
of  the  results  of  the  peace  treaty,  results  forthcoming  from  the  high 
ideals  living  in  the  hearts  of  those  statesmen  who  had  an  ardent 
desire  to  lead  humanity  to  progress  and  the  working  classes  to 
sunny  life. 

The  ratification  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  however,  meets  with  un¬ 
foreseen  opposition.  Especially  the  carrying  through  of  Chapter 
XIII  is  in  danger.  Every  nation  has  its  own  interests  to  look  after, 
and  the  competition  of  the  different  nations  of  the  world  has  been 
exercised  all  through  the  world’s  history.  No  power  on  earth  will 
be  able  to  eliminate  this  competition  of  the  nations  to  secure  for 
their  own  people  the  best  possible  living  conditions  and  greatest 
prosperity.  We  can  not  be  supposed  to  secure  any  results  at  all  in 
asking  some  nations  to  dispose  wholly  or  partially  of  the  privileges 
that  have  been  given  to  them  by  nature  or  have  been  acquired  by 
the  energy  with  which  the  explorers  and  the  leaders  of  these  nations 
have  discovered  hidden  treasures  or  built  up  agriculture  and  special 
industries.  To  give  consideration  to  the  taking  of  measures  to  dis¬ 
tribute  raw  materials  could  not  fail  to  provoke  justified  suspicions 
about  the  aims  and  purposes  we  may  have,  especially  with  those 
nations  that  are  producers  of  raw  materials.  None  of  these  nations 
will  ever  think  of  parting  with  their  rights  to  sell  their  raw  materials 
to  anyone  to  whom  they  want  to  sell  them  and  who  cares  to  pay  the 
best  price. 

Imposing  any  system  whatever  of  distribution  of  raw  materials 
would  interfere  with  the  right  of  private  property  and  even  with 
the  right  of  national  property.  Moreover,  no  system  could  have 
any  effect  without  fixing  the  selling  prices  and  at  the  same  time  the 
fixing  of  the  rates  of  exchange  between  the  selling  and  the  buying 
nations.  This  would  overturn  all  existing  trade  customs;  it  would 
be  more  far-reaching  than  the  nationalizing  of  industries.  The 
principle  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Baldesi  is  aimed  to  equalize  the 
rights  upon  the  soil  of  the  earth  and  the  fruits  of  energy  of  every 
nation.  I  might  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  one  question:  What  would  be 
the  opinion  formed  by  most  Governments  if  the  International  Labor 
Conference  should  try  to  assume  rights  that  are  not  given  to  it? 

The  minority  report  contains  the  following  comparison : 

The  majority  of  the  subcommittee  was  of  opinion  that  those  countries  which 
possess  the  raw  materials  under  consideration  might  resent  any  such  suggestion  on 
the  ground  that  it  would  interfere  with  their  absolute  right  to  dispose  freely  of  what 
belongs  to  them.  We  might  reply  to  this  objection  that  labor  also  may  be  considered 
as  doubly  entitled  to  respect  as  being  doubly  property — first,  of  the  laborer 
himself,  and,  secondly,  of  the  country  to  which  he  belongs.  Yet  this  has  not  ore- 


136 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


vented  the  countries  here  represented  from  desiring  to  see  some  international  regu¬ 
lation  of  the  conditions  of  human  labor  without  feeling  that  in  so  doing  they  are  in 
any  sense  humiliated  or  that  their  rights  are  thereby  infringed  upon. 

The  comparison  between  property  in  raw  material  and  that  in 
labor  seems  to  me  to  be  false  in  every  respect.  The  work  that  the 
International  Labor  Conference  is  performing  does  not  at  all  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  right  of  property  in  labor.  Property  in  labor  is  quite 
another  thing  than  property  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  generally  taken. 
Labor  may  produce  property,  may  be  turned  over,  or  as  Karl  Marx 
says,  be  coagulated  in  something  substantial  called  property  or  capi¬ 
tal.  Now,  this  International  Labor  Conference  is  not  interfering 
with  or  disposing  of  the  right  of  property  in  these  products  resulting 
from  labor,  but  we  are  trying  only  to  regulate  and  improve  existing 
labor  conditions. 

Mr.  Baldesi  could  scarcely  have  given  a  better  argument  for  my 
suggestion,  that  to  take  into  consideration  the  distribution  of  raw 
materials  is  not  the  task  of  this  conference.  This  comparison  show  , 
more  than  anything  I  could  offer  against  the  minority  report,  the 
distinction  between  the  matters  competent  for  consideration  in  this 
conference  and  the  matters  that  do  not  belong  to  it. 

The  appeal  that  the  minority  report  is  making  is  to  those  nations 
that  actually  are  in  possession  of  raw  materials,  namely,  to  bear  in 
mind  the  possibilities  of  discovering  new  resources  and  methods; 
I  do  not  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  possibilities  of  new  dis¬ 
coveries  of  raw  materials  would  incline  those  nations  who  now  'pos¬ 
sess  them  to  give  way  to  Mr.  Baldesi’s  theories.  Moreover,  the 
chance  of  discovering  new  resources  is  at  least  the  same  for  these . 
countries  now  in  possession  of  the  raw  materials  as  it  is  for  those 
countries  that  now  must  buy  them. 

As  regards  the  observation  that  we  may  not  now  simply  return 
to  prewar  conditions,  my  opinion,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  in  many 
respects  we  must  endeavor  to  draw  new  lines  whereupon  to  build 
new  methods.  As  to  the  question  of  raw  materials,  however,  and 
as  to  their  distribution,  I  sincerely  hope  that  in  this  respect  we 
may  return  to  prewar  conditions  as  soon  as  possible.  One  thing 
I  should  fear  immensely,  namely,  that  the  new  system  at  which 
Mr.  Baldesi  is  aiming  would,  if  put  into  practice,  have  even  a  more 
disastrous  effect  upon  general  production  than  the  socializing  of  in¬ 
dustries  has  already  had  in  those  countries  that  through  the  de¬ 
spair  caused  by  the  miseries  of  the  war  have  tried  to  change  radi¬ 
cally  the  methods  of  production.  An  international  control  of  ocean 
freight  rates,  aimed  at  by  Mr.  Baldesi  in  the  first  subcommittee  and 
in  the  minority  report,  will  not  fail  to  meet  with  the  disapproval  of 
all  mercantile  seafaring  nations. 

But,  even  aside  from  this  reason,  we  all  know  that  the  great  need 
of  ships  is  the  cause  of  high  freight  rates.  But  is  it  absolutely  cer¬ 
tain  that  it  is  just  because  freight  rates  are  high  and  give  large 
profits  that  every  yard  is  fully  occupied  and  new  yards  are  be¬ 
ing  established  in  every  country  that  can  build  steamers  in  order  to 
extend  their  mercantile  marine  as  fast  as  possible.  Practically  the 
adoption  by  this  conference  of  Mr.  Baldesi’s  point  of  view  could  have 
no  other  effect  than  an  adverse  one,  namely,  to  make  the  navigat¬ 
ing  companies  suspicious  and  to  induce  them  to  reduce  their  ship¬ 
building  programs. 

The  life  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  is  threatened  from 
two  different  sides,  first,  by  those  who  fear  progress,  and  second,  by 
those  who  see  in  its  failure  a  chance  of  disturbing  the  peace  of  the 
world. 

I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  are  all  giving  our  best  efforts  to 
the  progress  of  this  international  organization  and  it  is  for  this  reason 
that  it  seems  our  duty  to  proceed  steadily  but  carefully,  not  extending 
our  task  beyond  the  limits  drawn  for  us  by  the  allied  and  associated 
powers  in  the  treaty  of  Versailles. 

For  these  reasons,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  strongly  support  the  adoption 
of  the  majority  report  and  trust  that  the  conference  may  decide 
against  the  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  and  the  ideas  embodied  therein. 

Mr.  SOKAL  (Poland).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I 
think  we  have  digressed  somewhat  from  the  question  on  the  agenda. 


We  have  before  us  the  minority  motion  presented  by  Mr.  Baldesi, 
and  here  we  are  engaged  in  discussing  free  trade  and  various  other 
economic  questions  which  have  very  little  connection  with  the 
motion  presented  by  Mr.  Baldesi.  The  question  for  study  is  the 
question  of  unemployment,  and  Mr.  Baldesi's  motion  is  absolutely 
related  to  the  question  of  unemployment.  I  desire  to  draw  the  at¬ 
tention  of  the  conference  to  the  fact  that  had  the  question  of  unem¬ 
ployment  come  before  it  in  1914,  it  would  not  have  been  able  to 
discuss  any  other  plans  than  those  which  have  now  been  presented. 

I  do  not  wish  to  criticize  the  excellent  report  presented  by  Mr. 
Lazard;  I  wish  merely  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  in  this  report  there 
is  nothing  relating  to  a  question  which  is  of  the  greatest  importance, 
namely,  the  question  of  unemployment  after  the  war.  That  kind 
of  unemployment  is  connected  with  the  lack  of  raw  materials,  and 
what  Mr.  Baldesi  calls  attention  to  in  his  proposition  is  quite  just. 

If  we  read  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  we  must  admit  that 
it  is  very  moderate.  It  proposes  nothing  further  than  to  point  out 
to  the  League  of  Nations  the  fact  that  there  is  a  very  great  lack  of 
employment  in  various  countries  which  results  from  a  lack  of  raw 
materials — nothing  further  than  to  point  out  this  fact  to  the  League 
of  Nations.  And  that,  we  are  told,  is  not  within  our  right.  If  we 
ourselves  restrict  our  rights  to  the  extent  of  not  being  authorized  to 
point  out  to  the  League  of  Nations  one  of  the  most  important  causes 
of  unemployment,  then  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  situation 
at  all. 

The  question  of  distribution  from  an  economic  standpoint  is  being 
discussed,  whether  that  is  good  or  not.  We  do  not  wish  to  discuss 
those  things;  we  wish  simply  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  League 
of  Nations,  and  it  is  for  the  league  to  decide  the  question  as  it  under¬ 
stands  it. 

We  can  not  close  the  question  of  unemployment  by  merely  adopt¬ 
ing  the  report  presented  by  Mr.  Lazard.  This  report  is  excellent; 
on  that  point  I  am  perfectly  agreed,  but  I  consider  that  the  question 
lies  elsewhere.  By  adding  the  minority  motion,  whether  adopted 
in  Mr.  Baldesi’s  version  or  in  another  version  does  not  matter,  we 
shall  be  considering  the  question  of  unemployment  in  its  entirety. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Rufenacht  of  Switzerland  is  recognized. 

Dr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  Permit  me  to  say  first  of  all 
that  I  shall  not  speak  on  the  question  of  unemployment,  but  only 
on  that  of  general  reciprocity,  a  question  which  has  been  connected 
with  unemployment. 

To  their  regret,  the  Swiss  Government  delegates  find  themselves 
under  the  rather  disagreeable  necessity,  not  of  combating  the  draft 
convention  mentioned  under  proposition  B,  but  of  proposing  the 
postponement  of  deliberation  on  this  until  the  next  conference.  I 
call  that  a  rather  disagreeable  necessity',  for  I  fear  lest  Switzerland 
may  be  reproached  for  no  longer  being  faithful  to  the  ideas  of  equality 
that  she  has  always  proclaimed  and  maintained  both  through  a 
sentiment  of  justice  and  in  the  interests  of  her  own  citizens  who  are 
domiciled  in  foreign  lands. 

However,  such  is  not  the  case.  Yet  if  I  am  obliged  to  propose 
this  postponement,  it  is  for  the  reason  that — and  other  delegates  are 
perhaps  in  the  same  position  as  ourselves — our  delegation  does  not 
fully  understand  the  purport  of  the  draft;  we  are  not  fully  informed 
and  we  have  not  been  able  to  ask  our  Government  for  instructions 
with  regard  to  this  proposition.  In  fact,  this  last  was  not  on  the  list 
of  “tractanda”  of  the  present  conference,  but  has  been  raised  in  the 
course  of  our  deliberations,  and  goes  far  beyond  the  question  of  un¬ 
employment  with  which  it  was  linked.  This  latter  fact  alone  would 
perhaps  suffice  to  justify  myr  request  for  postponement.  I  do  not 
wish,  however,  to  invoke  an  argument  for  form’s  sake,  but  am  anx¬ 
ious  to  explain  the  material  factors  which  arouse  certain  doubts  in 
my  mind.  I  wonder  in  the  first  place  what  the  draft  means  by  the 
terms  “protection  of  workers”  and  “reciprocity.”  Does  a  law  for 
the  protection  of  workers  include  all  legal  provisions  on  behalf  of 
workers,  and  does  the  request  for  reciprocity  mean  that  the  foreign 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


137 


worker  shall  have  the  benefit  of  the  same  privileges  as  the  native 
worker,  or  that  he  shall  be  granted  the  same  treatment  as  that  to 
which  he  is  entitled  in  his  own  country? 

Even  if  these  judicial  questions  were  settled,  we  do  not  as  yet 
see  clearly  what  their  practical  consequences  would  be,  and  we  do 
not  know  whether  our  Government  will  agree  to  support  them  all. 
In  proof  of  this  I  need  take  only  the  few  examples  of  the  eventual 
application  of  the  draft  convention  which  I  am  going  to  indicate 
to  you. 

The  Swiss  factory  law  stipulates  that  the  manufacturer  can  not 
annul  the  contract  for  labor  on  account  of  any  compulsory  military 
service  to  which  the  worker  might  be  called.  Furthermore  the 
Swiss  code  provides  that  for  a  certain  length  of  time  during  military 
service  the  Swiss  worker  is  entitled  to  his  wages.  Without  doubt 
these  provisions  possess  the  characteristics  of  protection  for  workers. 
Is  it  really  your  intention,  and  do  you  consider  it  logical  and  equi¬ 
table,  that  the  foreign  worker  who  may  be  called  to  military  service 
in  his  own  country  shall  benefit  by  the  same  privilege  under  the 
proposed  reciprocity  clause? 

Another  example:  The  mutual  sick-benefit  institutions  which  are 
given  legal  status  and  subsidized  by  the  State  are  obliged  to  accept 
as  member  any  Swiss  citizen  who  has  fulfilled  the  general  conditions 
for  admission.  Consequently  they  can  refuse  to  admit  a  foreign 
citizen,  which  is  as  a  matter  of  fact  rarely  or  never  done  in  practice. 
The  sick  benefit  is  a  protection  for  workers.  Would  the  proposed 
reciprocity  really  require  the  benefit  associations,  which  in  addition 
to  their  sick  benefits,  often  have  an  economic,  social  or  ideal  object 
which  is  purely  national,  to  accept  any  foreigner  as  member? 

The  solution  is  still  more  difficult  and  complicated  with  regard 
to  the  present  compulsory  accident  insurance  and  the  future  old- 
age  and  invalidity  insurance. 

In  these  insurances  the  very  system  of  laws  necessarily  brings 
about  a  difference  depending  on  nationality.  Moreover,  the  ques¬ 
tion  does  not  occur  merely  as  regards  Switzerland.  Setting  aside 
the  German  insurance  laws,  other  legislation  is  in  existence  which 
provides  treatment  in  social  insurance  differentiated  according  to 
nationality.  I  recall  the  French  law,  which  does  not  permit  insured 
foreigners  to  take  advantage  of  the  subsidies  granted  by  the  State, 
and  especially  the  English  law  on  provision  for  old  age,  which  is 
granted  only  to  British  subjects.  I  would  not  say  that  this  is  the 
ideal  state  of  things;  I  share  the  view  that  we  must  try  to  reach 
complete  international  equality.  But  I  believe  that  it  is  rash  to 
try  to  reach  this  standard  by  the  reciprocity  clause  under  this 
general,  absolute  form. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  first  step  to  be  taken  is  an  attempt  to  assimi¬ 
late  the  different  national  laws,  or  else  to  come  to  an  understanding 
between  the  States  by  taking  account  of  the  differences  in  the 
systems  of  national  law.  For  this  purpose  it  will  be  necessary  to 
study  minutely  the  laws  of  all  countries  in  all  their  details  and  to 
understand  fully  whether,  and  in  what  points,  reciprocity  pure  and 
simple  is  feasible.  Our  delegation  considers  then  that  in  any  case 
we  must  give  the  Governments  time  to  examine  the  influence  of  the 
proposal  on  all  the  laws,  ordinances,  regulations,  and  institutions 
for  the  protection  of  workers  before  binding  ourselves  to  a  rule 
which  might  give  rise  to  surprises  in  its  practical  application.  It 
is  not  in  order  to  oppose  the  proposed  draft  convention,  but  rather 
in  order  to  assure  that  its  provisions  which  will  be  acceptable  to  all 
States,  and  thereby  the  possibility  of  its  enforcement  without  fric¬ 
tion,  that  we  venture  to  submit  to  you  the  following  proposal : 

(1)  It  is  decided  to  postpone  the  discussion  on  the  draft  convention  dealing  with 
reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers. 

(2)  The  proposal  is  referred  to  the  governing  body  to  be  examined  anew,  and  if 
necessary,  to  be  submitted  to  a  later  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  William  Gemmill,  of  South  Africa,  has 
the  floor. 


Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  the  conference  will 
have  noticed  that  draft  resolution  No.  4  of  the  commission  on  un¬ 
employment  deals  with  the  question  of  migration  of  workers  out 
of  their  own  State.  In  other  words,  it  deals  with  the  emigration  of 
workers,  say,  from  Europe  to  the  new  countries.  The  proposal  of  the 
draft  resolution  is  that  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  appoint  an  international  commission  to  consider 
that  question.  Now,  gentlemen,  I  would  suggest  to  the  conference 
that  the  interests  of  the  European  countries  in  a  matter  of  emigration 
is  not  necessarily  the  same  as  the  interests  of  the  other  countries, 
more  particularly  the  new  countries,  such  as  Australia,  Canada, 
South  Africa,  the  Argentine,  and  so  on. 

And  the  amendment  which  I  propose  is  with  a  view  to  insuring 
that  the  commission  to  be  appointed  by  the  governing  body  shall 
have  a  proper  representation  of  those  other  countries.  I  suggest  in 
the  amendment  that  the  representation  of  States  on  the  European 
Continent  on  the  commission  shall  be  limited  to  one-half  of  the  total 
membership  of  the  commission.  It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that 
the  fact  that  the  governing  body  will  appoint  this  commission  is  a 
sufficient  guaranty  that  the  commission  will  be  properly  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  interests  affected,  but  I  would  draw  the  attention  of  the 
conference  to  the  amazing  fact  that  the  governing  body  contains, 
out  of  24  representatives,  20  from  the  European  Continent.  Per¬ 
sonally  such  a  representation  tends  to  make  me  somewhat  doubtful 
as  to  the  proper  appointment  of  this  international  commission  by 
the  governing  body.  It  is  a  matter  of  the  most  vital  importance 
to  the  new  countries  that  any  provisions  affecting  emigration  should 
have  due  regard  to  the  conditions  of  those  countries,  and  I  therefore 
would  urge  that  the  amendment  which  I  propose  should  be  adopted 
in  order  that  there  may  be  no  danger  of  a  commission  being  appointed 
and  a  report  being  presented  which  does  not  give  due  effect  to  these 
particular  and  peculiar  circumstances.  I  therefore  beg  to  move  an 
amendment  that  the  representation  of  the  States  on  the  European 
Continent  on  the  commission  shall  be  limited  to  one-half  of  the  total 
membership  of  the  commission. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  it  is  a  quarter  of  6 
o’clock,  and  the  following  members  are  still  listed  for  the  general 
discussion:  Messrs.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  Gu6rin  (France),  Jouhaux 
(France),  Schindler  (Switzerland),  Robertson  (Canada),  and  Gondra 
(Paraguay).  The  meeting,  as  we  decided,  must  adjourn  at  6  o’clock. 
I  propose  then  that  we  bear  Mr.  Ilg,  and,  after  the  translation  post¬ 
pone  the  rest  of  the  general  discussion  until  to-morrow  morning  at 
10  o'clock. 

Mr.  Ilg  is  recognized. 

Mr.  ILG  (Switzerland).  If  the  proposals  submitted  by  the  com¬ 
mission  to  the  conference  are  accepted,  they  will  not  greatly  change 
the  present  state  of  things.  I  admit  that  it  was  perhaps  very  diffi¬ 
cult  to  succeed  in  drafting  a  convention  in  the  short  time  at  our 
disposal  and  the  lack  of  data  which  we  ought  to  have  had  in  hand. 
I  hope  that  the  problem  of  unemployment  will  be  better  prepared 
at  the  next  conference  and  that  it  can  be  discussed  then,  especially 
if  the  committee  is  appointed  as  is  suggested  by  the  commission  on 
unemployment. 

As  unemployment  benefits,  I  believe  that  this  would  be  the  best 
'solution:  The  employers’  and  the  workers’  organizations  in  each 
country  should,  with  the  aid  of  the  State,  create  an  unemployment 
institution  to  come  to  the  relief  of  the  unemployed.  But  that  is 
not  the  main  aspect  of  the  problem.  The  point  is  not  merely  for 
the  International  Labor  Conference  to  find  the  means  of  aiding  the 
unemployed;  the  point  is  to  find  the  means  of  combating  unem¬ 
ployment.  If  we  look  at  the  problem  in  this  way,  we  are  obliged 
to  come  to  what  Mr.  Baldesi  said,  because  we  see  the  situation 
to-day  as  follows:  We  have  countries  in  which  it  is  said  that  labor 
is  lacking,  in  which  there  is  not  enough  labor,  and  we  have 
other  countries  in  which  there  is  a  large  body  of  unemployed, 


138 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


thousands  and  thousands  who  can  not  work  because  they  have  not 
the  necessary  raw  materials.  The  point  is,  therefore,  to  find  out  how 
this  state  of  affairs  can  be  remedied. 

The  question  with  which  we  should  become  acquainted  is  to  find 
out  whether  the  League  of  Nations  is  going  to  continue  to  work  on  the 
principle  of  solidarity  among  peoples.  That  is  the  substance  of 
the  question,  and  that  is  what  we  must  study.  If  the  League  of  Na¬ 
tions  continues  to  work  on  the  principle  of  profit,  we  shall  see  again 
the  same  situation  which  we  saw  before  the  war  in  certain  countries. 
On  one  hand  some  countries  will  be  making  a  lot  of  products,  filling 
the  shops  with  them  and  talking  about  over-production,  and  in  other 
countries  there  will  be  a  lack  of  production. 

Mr.  Guerin,  when  we  were  discussing  the  eight-hour  day,  painted 
a  very  dark  picture  of  the  situation  and  told  us  that  it  was  neces¬ 
sary  to  work  and  to  work  because  production  was  insufficient.  But 
it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  people  want  to  produce,  by  what 
system  they  want  to  produce,  whether  they  want  to  produce  merely 
for  profit  or  whether  they  want  to  produce  for  the  needs  of  peoples. 
Well,  once  more  I  regret  that  the  conference  has  not  time  enough 
to  study  this  question.  In  the  meantime,  I  hope  that  Mr.  Baldesi’s 
plan  will  be  supported,  and  if  carried,  I  hope  that  the  League  of 
Nations  will  not  wait  one  or  two  years  to  intervene.  In  fact,  it  is  a 
pressing  matter.  For  my  own  part,  I  am  quite  pessimistic  as  regards 
the  future.  I  have  already  noticed  that  my  colleagues  from  Great 
Britain  do  not  see  the  situation  in  as  serious  a  light  as  I  do,  although 
they  are  perhaps  a  little  nearer  the  center  of  disturbance. 

We  know,  however,  what  the  situation  is,  but  we  do  not  want  to 
believe  it.  We  do  not  like  to  see  it  as  it  is.  It  is  such  that  in  Ger¬ 
many,  in  Russia,  and  in  Austria,  we  find  utter  discouragement,  and 
I  very  much  fear  that  the  same  situation  will  finally  come  to  exist 
in  other  countries.  It  might  be  that  if  we  do  not  succeed  in  warding 
off  this  situation — the  question  of  being  able  to  give  everybody 
the  means  of  working  is  a  very  important  one — if  the  number  of 
unemployed  remains  what  it  is  in  certain  countries,  it  may  be  that 
we  can  not  guarantee  the  future. 

As  I  have  said,  I  am  pessimistic  with  regard  to  the  future.  If 
we  do  not  find  a  way  to  act  energetically,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the 
disease  will  continue.  And  in  spite  of  all  possible  intelligence, 
how  will  it  end?  It  will  perhaps  be  like  the  disease  of  influenza, 
which  knows  no  boundaries,  which  goes,  straight  ahead.  For  all 
these  reasons  I  consider  that  the  Baldesi  motion  is  of  great  importance 
and  I  hope  that  the  conference  will  unanimously  accept  it  with  the 
express  recommendation  that  the  League  of  Nations  attend  at  once 
to  this  problem.  In  fact,  as  long  as  there  are  thousands  of  unem¬ 
ployed,  the  world  can  never  become  tranquil.  As  for  the  problem 
itself,  the  problem  of  unemployment,  I  hope  that  it  can  be  studied 
at  the  next  conference  and  that  then  they  will  succeed  in  making 
an  effectual  convention  which  may  do  away  with  unemployment. 

If  the  peace  treaty  is  sincere  and  if  we  want  to  work  according  to 
its  spirit,  we  ought  to  succeed  in  being  able  to  suppress  unemploy¬ 
ment.  If  we  take  as  our  basis  the  principle  of  solidarity,  it  is  possible 
to  suppress  it,  and  we  must  reach  that  point. 

The  PRESIDENT.  In  conformity  to  the  decision  which  you 
have  made,  the  general  discussion  is  postponed  until  to-morrow  at 
10  o’clock.  The  following  speakers  are  listed  to  take  part  in  this 
general  discussion:  Messrs.  Guerin,  Jouhaux,  Schindler,  Robertson, 
di  Palma  Castiglione,  and  Gondra. 

The  meeting  is  now  adjourned  till  to-morrow,  Wednesday,  at  10 
a.  m. 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Alejandro  Unsain  (substitute  (or 
Dr.  Filipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Michel  Ldvie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  (or 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes 
Czecho-Slovalda: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  Charles  SpiAka. 

Mr.  F.  Stastny  (substitute  for  Mr. 
R.  Tayerle). 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 
Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  L4on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  A.  J.  C.  Ross  (substitute  for  Mr. 

D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 

Mr.  Jas.  Sexton  (substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 


Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  Henrich  Blomjous  (substitute 
for  Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade). 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  lor  Mr.  Oie 
Lian). 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Alvarez  de  Buenavista  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson). 
Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos4  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Laeerda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregolre  Mlchaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Mr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Mr.  J.  Gascon  Marin  (substitute  for 
Viscount  de  Eza). 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Ounnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  LLndqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Cfoar  Zurneta. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


139 


TWENTIETH  SESSION— WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER  26,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  10.15  o’clock  a.  m.,  Baron  Mayor  des  i 
Planches  (Italy),  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  meeting  is  called  to  order.  I  ought  to 
say  that  I  am  taking  the  chair  for  only  a  few  minutes,  while  we  are 
waiting  for  Mr.  Barnes.  Mr.  Butler  has  the  floor  in  order  to  make  a 
few  announcements  to  the  assembly. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  As  to-morrow  is  Thanksgiving 
Day  and  a  public  holiday  in  the  United  States,  it  will  not  be  possible 
to  sit  in  the  afternoon.  There  will  therefore  be  only  a  morning  sitting 
but  there  will  be  a  meeting  of  the  governing  body  at  4  o’clock  to¬ 
morrow  afternoon  in  the  Navy  Building.  That  means  that  the  time 
at  the  disposal  of  the  conference  is  rather  seriously  reduced  and  it 
will  make  it  more  difficult  to  complete  its  work  in  time.  It  is  there¬ 
fore  suggested  that  the  following  program  should  be  definitely 
adopted,  in  order  to  insure  the  completion  of  the'  work  of  the 
conference  by  Saturday: 

Wednesday  morning,  report  on  unemployment  to  be  completed; 
Wednesday  afternoon,  report  on  special  countries;  Thursday  morn¬ 
ing,  employment  of  children  at  night;  Friday  morning,  report  on 
maternity;  Friday  afternoon,  final  votes;  Saturday  morning,  final 
votes  and  the  program  for  the  next  meeting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Because  of  what  the  secretary  general  has 
just  said,  i.e.,  that  our  time  is  extremely  short,  that  our  hours  are 
numbered,  I  trust  that  everybody  will  consider  it  a  matter  of  the 
greatest  importance  to  limit  their  remarks  to  the  barest  essentials. 

I  believe,  gentlemen,  that  we  are  to  resume  the  general  discussion 
of  the  two  reports  of  the  commission  on  unemployment,  the  majority 
and  the  minority  reports.  I  have  here  the  list  of  Speakers,  and  it  is 
headed  by  the  names  of  Mr.  Guerin  and  Mr.  Jouhaux.  If  Mr. 
Guerin  is  in  the  room,  I  beg  that  he  will  avail  himself  of  the  right 
to  the  floor  which  was  granted  him  yesterday. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  But  Mr.  President,  together  with  my 
colleague,  Mr.  Schindler,  I  presented  a  motion.  This  is  not  the 
motion  which  is  under  discussion  at  the  present  time,  and  I  there¬ 
fore  have  no  reason  for  taking  the  floor  at  this  particular  moment. 
It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  more  fitting  to  wait  until  my  motion 
comes  up  for  discussion. 

Mr.  Jouhaux  is  not  here.  Are  there  no  other  speakers  on  the  list? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  any  other  speaker  wish  to  take  the  floor 
on  the  subject  of  these  two  reports? 

Mr.  E.  BLAKE  ROBERTSON  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  as  a 
member  of  the  unemployment  commission,  I  rise  to  make  a  few 
general  remarks  on  the  report  now  before  the  conference.  I  wish 
first  to  second  the  amendment  moved  by  Mr.  Gemmill,  of  South 
Africa,  regarding  the  personnel  of  the  proposed  international  com¬ 
mission  to  report  upon  measures  to  be  adopted  to  regulate  migra¬ 
tion.  By  doing  so  it  is  with  no  intention  of  in  any  way  reflecting 
upon  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  nor  is  it 
meant  as  the  expression  of  a  suspicion  that  the  governing  body 
would  be  at  all  likely  in  selecting  their  international  commission 
to  do  so  on  a  basis  that  would  in  anv  way  be  unfair  to  any  of  the 
States  concerned.  But  in  a  resolution  advocating  the  appointment 
of  a  commission  whose  actions  may  be  very  far  reaching  it  is  only 
proper  that  this  conference  should  surround  the  selection  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  commission  by  all  safeguards  which  would  likely  insure  itsj 
work  being  a  success.  Europe  furnishes  the  major  portion  of  the 
emigrants,  but  Africa,  Australia,  New  Zealand,  North  America, 
and  South  America  receive  the  major  portion  of  the  immigrants. 
The  investigations  and  the  conclusions  of  the  proposed  commission 
will,  therefore,  deal  quite  as  much  with  conditions  in  the  newer 
countries  as  in  the  older  European  lands,  and  for  this  reason,  if  for 
no  other,  it  seems  fit  and  proper  that  the  newer  lands  should  be  pro¬ 
portionately  represented  on  the  proposed  international  commis¬ 
sion. 


In  addition  to  this,  if  the  international  labor  conferences  are  to 
be  a  success  now  or  in  the  future,  it  is  imperative  that  no  founda¬ 
tion  should  exist  for  the  allegation  that  the  actions  of  the  confer¬ 
ences  are  dictated  by  European  considerations  alone,  or  that  the 
personnel  of  governing  bodies  or  special  sections  of  the  Labor  Office 
are  European  rather  than  international  in  character.  The  protest 
filed  by  the  Latin-American  Republics  yesterday  would  indicate 
that  to  some  degree  such  a  suspicion  already  exists.  For  these 
reasons  I  have  pleasure  in  seconding  Mr.  Gemmill’s  amendment. 

The  report  of  the  unemployment  commission,  generally  speak¬ 
ing,  covers,  I  believe  fairly,  the  proceedings  of  the  three  subcommis¬ 
sions  which  dealt  with  the  matters  submitted  to  them.  There  is, 
however,  one  important  omission.  Mr.  Sexton,  one  of  the  workers’ 
delegates,  who  was  a  member  of  the  subcommission  dealing  with  the 
causes  of  unemployment,  brought  before  the  subcommission  the 
question  of  the  present  system  of  land  tenure,  which,  in  his  opinion, 
is  one  of  the  main  causes  of  unemployment.  The  cure  advocated 
by  him  for  unemployment  was  the  abolition  of  the  private  owner¬ 
ship  of  land.  His  views  as  enunciated  were  opposed  by  all  the 
employers’  delegates  on  the  subcommission,  but  he  was  neverthe¬ 
less  clearly  promised  that  the  views  as  advanced  by  him  would  be 
incorporated  in  the  records  of  the  conference,  and  for  that  reason 
and  to  carry  out  the  promise  to  which  I  was  a  party  I  now  bring  the 
subject  before  the  conference  as  a  whole. 

With  reference  to  the  third  recommendation,  regarding  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  unemployment  insurance  in  each  State  member  of  the 
permanent  organization,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  such  recommenda¬ 
tion  is  premature  as  suggested,  and  if  passed  will  be  passed  without 
the  conference  having  sufficient  knowledge  of  conditions  in  the 
States  concerned  to  justify  such  a  recommendation  being  made. 
For  the  conference  to  recommend  that  any  certain  system  should 
be  introduced  in  a  particular  country  without  the  conference  having 
sufficient  information  and  knowledge  regarding  the  particular  State 
and  the  conditions  therein  to  justify  the  recommendation,  can  have 
no  other  effect  than  to  discredit  to  a  certain  degree  the  work  of  the 
conference  in  the  eyes  of  the  thinking  public. 

At  the  National  Industrial  Conference  held  in  Ottawa  on  Septem¬ 
ber  15  to  20  of  the  present  year,  at  which  the  Government,  the 
public,  the  employers,  and  the  employees  were  represented — the 
delegates  present  being  in  excess  of  the  delegates  at  this  interna¬ 
tional  conference — and  where  the  problems  of  only  the  single  State 
were  being  considered,  the  question  of  unemployment  insurance  for 
Canada  was  taken  up. 

The  unanimous  finding  of  the  delegates  was  that  at  that  time  there 
was  insufficient  information  regarding  the  necessity  for  the  introduc¬ 
tion  of  any  unemployment  insurance  scheme  and  insufficient  in¬ 
formation  regarding  the  character  of  plans  to  justify  any  decision 
being  reached  at  that  date.  The  unanimous  recommendation  to 
the  Government  was  to  appoint  a  board  consisting  of  representatives 
of  the  Government,  the  public,  the  employers,  and  the  employees,  * 
including  a  representative  of  the  women  of  Canada,  to  investigate 
the  question  and  to  report  with  recommendations  as  to  the  advisa¬ 
bility  of  enacting  legislation.  The  suggested  investigation  has  not 
yet  taken  place  nor  has  there  been  any  change  in  the  situation 
which  would  apparently  justify  this  conference  expressing  an  opinion 
on  Canadian  affairs  which  the  Canadian  people  themselves  were 
unable  to  reach  two  months  ago.  Practically  every  delegate  and  ad¬ 
viser  for  the  Government,  the  employers,  and  the  workmen  who  are 
to-day  at  this  conference  were  at  the  Ottawa  conference  last  Septem¬ 
ber  and  participated  in  reaching  the  conclusion  which  was  reached 
on  that  date.  No  new  information  being  available,  Canadian 
employers  have  no  reason  for  changing  the  decision  then  reached, 
and  there  is  consequently  no  action  open  to  the  employers’  delegate 
except  to  vote  against  the  recommendation  in  so  far  as  it  applies  to 


140 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Canada.  I  presume  that  the  Canadian  Government  delegates  and 
the  Canadian  workers’  delegates  feel  themselves  likewise  bound. 

The  only  other  point  on  which  I  desire  to  touch  is  the  draft  conven¬ 
tion  on  reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers.  The  phraseology 
and  wording  of  this  draft  convention  is  too  indefinite  to  permit  of 
any  concise  criticism,  but  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  regarding  the 
right  of  lawful  organization.  If  by  right  of  lawful  organization  it  is 
implied  that  others  not  belonging  to  such  organizations  must  neces¬ 
sarily  give  recognition  to  such  organizations,  the  subject  is  one  upon 
which  the  employers  of  Canada  have  already  this  year  expressed  an 
opinion  along  the  following  broad  general  lines: 

(а)  Canadian  employers  admit  the  right  of  employees  to  join  any  lawful 
organization. 

(б)  Canadian  employers  should  not  be  required  to  recognize  unions  or  to  establish 
“closed  shops.’’  Canadian  employers  insist  on  the  right,  when  so  desired,  to  main¬ 
tain  their  plants  as  open  shops ,  by  which  they  mean  that  no  employer  should  discrim¬ 
inate  against  any  employee  because  of  the  latter’s  membership  or  nonmembership 
in  any  organization,  and  no  employee  should  interfere  with  any  other  employee 
because  of  the  latter’s  membership  or  nonmembership  in  any  organization. 

(c)  Employers  should  not  be  required  to  negotiate  except  directly  with  their  own 
employees  or  groups  of  their  own  employees. 

If  the  proposed  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treatment  of 
foreign  workers  is  not  so  amended  as  to  make  clear  that  the  right  of 
lawful  organization  does  not  carry  with  it  any  compulsion  of  recog¬ 
nition  of  such  organization,  the  Canadian  employers’  delegate  has 
no  option  but  to  vote  against  such  convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  speakers  are  Messrs.  Guerin,  Jouhaux, 
Schindler,  and  Robertson.  As  Mr.  RobertsoD  has  spoken,  there 
remain  Messrs.  Guerin.  Jouhaux,  and  Schindler.  Mr.  Guerin  and 
Mr.  Schindler  are  to  develop  the  same  themes.  Mr.  Jouhaux  re¬ 
quests  the  Boor  first,  but  the  other  two  gentlemen  are  the  authors  of 
the  motion,  and  expect  to  be  the  first  to  speak.  I  must  consult 
them. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (Prance).  Certainly. 

The  PRESIDENT.  According  to  the  order  in  which  the  speakers 
are  down,  I  should  give  the  floor  to  Mr.  Guerin,  but  as  Mr.  Gu6rin 
has  consented  to  give  up  his  turn,  I  recognize  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  it  is  not  my 
intention  to  examine  in  detail  the  report  which  has  been  submitted 
to  you,  on  the  principles  of  which  we  are  all  agreed.  But  without 
confining  ourselves  to  the  particular  situation  in  which  we  are  placed 
here  at  this  conference,  and  taking  into  account  the  situations  in 
our  respective  countries,  we  may  truthfully  say  that  the  solution 
for  the  problem  of  unemployment  presented  in  the  exceedingly 
interesting  report  of  Mr.  Max  Lazard  is  quite  a  bit  astray  from  the 
real  solution. 

Obviously  benefits  to  aid  the  unemployed  are  debts  that  society 
owes  to  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  produce,  and  who,  through  no  will 
of  their  own,  are  unemployed.  The  real  remedy,  however,  will 
never  be  found  in  paying  benefits  to  the  unemployed,  as  such  help, 
no  matter  how  it  is  given,  is  always  a  humiliation  to  the  worker,  and 
puts  him  @n  an  inferior  plane,  for  reasons  which,  I  repeat,  are  not 
due  to  his  own  volition. 

As  far  as  wre  are  concerned,  the  solution  rests  in  rational  organiza¬ 
tion  of  labor.  It  is  through  labor  that  men  living  together  in  society 
should  find  the  means  of  existence,  and  with  that  in  view  an  exami¬ 
nation  of  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi  is  primary;  each  one  of  us 
should  make  a  scrupulous  search  for  we  shall  find  in  it  the  essential 
reasons  for  affirmation  of  an  important  point.  , 

To  be  sure  the  system  of  employment  exchanges,  like  unemploy¬ 
ment  insurance,  may  to  a  certain  degree  diminish  the  time  of  unem¬ 
ployment.  They  can  not  pretend  to  sdlve  the  questions  of  unem¬ 
ployment,  nor,  I  am  sure,  did  any  such  pretence  enter  the  mind 
of  the  author  of  the  report.  It  is  wise  to  control  great  migratory 
movements,  from  within  each  country  as  well  as  from  without  the 
countries  from  which  emigration  is  taking  place;  to  follow  the  emi¬ 
grants  and  see  that  they  are  protected  by  the  authorities  of  the  various 
countries  and  by  workers’  organizations.  Granting  this,  however, 


it  is  no  less  evident  that  the  great  problem  of  the  present  hour  is 
the  organization  of  labor. 

How  can  we  admit  that  a  conference  such  as  this,  constituted  for 
the  most  part  of  labor  experts,  men  who  come  into  daily  contact 
with  the  realities  of  economic  life,  who  are  in  constant  touch  with 
the  details  of  the  lives  of  the  workers,  whose  knowledge  of  the  diffi¬ 
culties  which  beset  the  producing  classes  of  every  country,  is  not 
theoretical  nor  from  books,  and  who,  therefore,  through  the  very 
circumstances  in  which  they  are  placed,  are  in  a  position  to  make  a 
thorough  and  accurate  study  of  labor  problems;  how,  I  say.  can  we 
admit  that  this  conference,  composed  of  these  very  men,  empowered 
by  their  mandates  to  discuss  these  matters  of  such  prime  interest, 
should  to-day  assert  its  incompetence  by  referring  the  question  to 
the  League  of  Nations?  The  League  of  Nations  may  indeed  contain 
eminent  jurists,  but  I  do  not  believe  that  jurists  can  solve  the  ques¬ 
tions  which  face  us  now. 

The  solution  of  the  questions  with  which  we  are  now  faced  de¬ 
pends  solely  on  accurate  knowledge  of  the  situation  the  whole 
world  over.  Yesterday  Mr.  llg  touched  on  the  matter  briefly,  and 
when  he  said  that  the  situation  was  far  more  serious  than  certain 
persons  believed,  he  was  absolutely  right.  It  is  not  only  that 
countries  shaken  by  revolutions  are  in  peril  at  the  present  time;  all 
the  countries  in  the  world,  whatever  their  present  financial  status, 
are  in  peril.  All  the  countries  in  the  world  are  in  danger  unless  the 
work  of  the  world  is  organized  upon  a  rational  basis. 

We'have  no  intention  of  asking  the  State  to  control,  regulate,  or 
interfere  with  private  business.  But  if  we  do  not  intend  to  ask 
such  intervention  in  private  business,  we  do  dare  to  ask  that  all 
humanity  take  part  in  preventing  waste,  and  in  preventing  the 
nonutilization  of  productive  resources;  we  ask  that  it  organize 
production  upon  a  clearly  defined  basis,  not  with  the  private  inter¬ 
ests  of  each  individual  nation  as  its  object,  but  the  general  interests 
of  all  humanity. 

This  is  the  point  to  which  I  wish  to  draw  your  attention  just  now: 
The  situation  of  disorganization  and  the  lack  of  balance  which  faces 
us.  The  fact  that  the  question  of  unemployment  was  placed  upon 
the  agenda  of  this  conference  shows  the  importance  which  those  in 
power  in  each  country  attach  to  this  problem.  In  referring  the 
problem  to  the  conference  for  discussion,  the  signatories  of  the  peace 
treaty  certainly  intended  that  the  problem  should  be  effectively 
solved.  Consequently  they  may  be  assumed  to  have  rejected  abso¬ 
lutely  all  solutions  of  a  purely  national  character,  which  could  be 
of  no  value  whatever  upon  the  present  basis.  They  may  also  be 
assumed  to  have  considered  in  the  same  light  the  solutions  which  the 
report  condemns  as  ineffectual  if  taken  by  themselves.  Recognizing 
the  fact  that  the  evolution  of  nations  after  this  great  war  would  lead 
not  to  isolation  and  rivalry  of  interests  but  to  association  of  resources 
for  a  better  distribution  of  wealth  throughout  the  world,  they  in¬ 
tended  this  question  to  be  fully  and  effectively  solved. 

Now,  a  complete  and  effective  solution  can  not  depend  solely  on 
unemployment  insurance  or  a  system  of  employment  exchangee, 
even  if  such  a  system  were  international.  In  the  first  place,  the 
workers  in  each  country  must  never  be  driven  to  enforced  unem¬ 
ployment.  But  if  we  turn  to  Europe  and  consider  the  condition 
of  the  workers  in  the  various  countries,  we  shall  find  that  in  the 
majority  of  these  countries,  including  France,  there  is  a  perpetual 
state  of  unemployment,  in  spite  of  the  decrease  in  the  number  of 
laborers  caused  by  the  war.  Why?  Because  the  war  exhausted 
all  the  raw  materials  that  were  on  hand,  and  because  at  the  present 
time  most  of  the  countries  of'Europe,  lacking  these  raw  materials, 
are  compelled — regardless  of  such  resolutions  as  you  may  pass  here 
in  the  order  indicated  in  the  report — to  condemn  their  workers  to 
unemployment,  which  breeds  in  them  feelings  of  latent  revolt,  a 
condition,  let  us  not  forget,  of  evil  import.  It  is  this  obviously 
dangerous  situation  which  we  must  attempt  to  eliminate. 

At  this  point  I  ask  the  particular  attention  of  the  workers’  dele¬ 
gates,  in  order  to  show  them  the  dangerous  direction  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  situation.  In  certain  countries  it  is  thought  that  the  in- 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


141 


terests  of  the  workers  can  be  associated  with  a  new  economic  impe¬ 
rialism  which  consists  in  keeping  for  themselves  materials  which 
other  countries  need.  I  say  to  my  fellow  workers  that  these  are 
dangerous  tactics,  which  may  at  a  given  moment  react  against  them 
with  unsuspected  strength,  carry  them  off  and  destroy  the  condi¬ 
tions  established  by  them  behind  this  fragile  shelter.  Moreover,  it 
is  no  longer  possible,  after  having  agreed  that  the  conclusion  of  the 
war  was  to  be  the  organization  of  the  League  of  Nations,  based  on  a 
principle  of  mutual  aid  among  all  nations — it  is  not  possible,  I  say, 
for  imperialism,  the  cause  of  so  many  evils,  to  continue  in  a 
new  form  for  the  sole  benefit  and  privilege  of  certain  countries.  It 
would  be  against  the  central  idea  of  the  League  of  Nations,  it  would  be 
to  ruin  it  in  advance,  if  we  did  not  understand  that  the  effort  must 
be  made  to-day,  and  that  the  very  existence  of  humanity  depends, 
not  on  the  particular  condition  of  any  one  country,  but  on  the  general 
condition  of  all  the  countries  in  the  world. 

What  we  are  asking  at  the  present  time,  what  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Baldesi  asks,  is  that  this  problem  may  be  examined  from  this  angle 
by  the  League  of  Nations.  We  are  asking  you,  you  responsible  ex¬ 
perts,  you  who  will  to-morrow  find  yourselves  confronting  difficul¬ 
ties,  you  who  to-morrow  will  have  to  face  the  masses  who  will  demand 
their  right  to  live,  you  who  to-morrow  will  be  bearing  all  the  responsi¬ 
bilities  of  society — we  ask  that  you  say  to-day  with  us  that  it  is 
proper,  that  it  is  indispensable,  for  the  League  of  Nations  to  consider 
this  question  and  evolve  a  solution  in  accordance  with  the  higher 
interests  of  all  humanity. 

The  war  imposed  certain  restrictive  and  prohibitive  measures  with 
regard  to  the  exportation  of  certain  necessary  raw  materials  in  a 
large  number  of  countries.  The  reason  for  such  restriction  could  be 
understood  during  the  war,  but  such  measures  can  not  be  enforced 
now  without  creating  a  decided  advantage  in  favor  of  the  countries 
producing  these  raw  materials,  and  a  disadvantage  to  all  the  other 
nations.  Such  procedure  would  be  renewing,  in  a  certain  sense,  a 
new  form  of  economic  imperialism  as  dangerous  as  the  imperialism  of 
yesterday.  That  is  why  we  have  the  right,  why  we  demand — now 
that  peace  has  come  to  the  world — that  the  industrial  development 
of  all  countries  should  take  place  normally,  on  an  equal  footing,  so 
that  no  country  may  be  deprived  of  raw  materials  of  which  it  has 
need.  To  do  this  we  demand  that  raw  materials  be  not  squandered 
in  any  country  for  sordid  reasons  or  for  purposes  of  speculation . 

It  is  impossible  that  the  working  classes  in  some  countries  should 
be  condemned  to  perpetual  unemployment,  while  other  countries 
unlawfully  keep  to  themselves,  through  prevention  of  export,  the 
raw  materials  which  are  needed  to  give  employment  to  workers  in 
the  countries  lacking  these  materials.  It  is  not  possible  for  the 
artificially  privileged  advantage  of  one  country  to  be  safeguarded  to 
the  detriment  of  the  general  interest.  No  general  relief  will  be  pos¬ 
sible  in  the  world  as  long  as  measures  are  in  effect  which  to-day 
enable  certain  countries  to  hoard  their  raw  materials,  to  the  dis¬ 
advantage  of  all  the  other  nations,  as  long  as  certain  countries  have 
the  right  to  sell  raw  materials  to  foreign  purchasers  at  higher  prices 
than  those  asked  of  their  own  inhabitants.  There  will  be  no  eco¬ 
nomic  equality,  there  will  be  no  possibility  of  real  relief  for  exhausted 
countries,  there  will  be  no  real  solution  of  the  problem  of  unemploy¬ 
ment,  as  long  as  this  question  is  not  solved.  That  is  why  we  specially 
urge  upon  the  responsible  delegates  at  this  conference  the  fact  that 
Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion  should  be  passed.  Even  if  it  were  amended 
it  would  matter  very  little,  provided  that  the  principle  remained. 
What  does  matter  is  that  the  motion  be  passed  by  the  conference 
and  transmitted  to  the  League  of  Nations. 

Believe  me,  the  real  solution,  the  final  and  not  the  temporary 
solution,  the  solution  of  the  future  rests  in  the  conclusions  which  we 
present.  If  you  really  wish  the  League  of  Nations  to  become  an 
organization  capable  of  guiding  the  world  toward  progress  in  peace¬ 
ful  development;  if  you  wish  to  comply  with  the  will  of  the  masses; 
if  you  wish  to  satisfy  the  desires  of  the  producing  multitude — then 
you  must  adopt  this  course,  you  who  wrote  on  the  first  page  of  the 


labor  charter  that  labor  was  to  be  emancipated  from  slavery.  All 
other  considerations  would  only  be  considerations  of  a  formal  nature, 
mere  matters  of  judicial  precedence,  which  could  not  stand  the 
test  of  the  real  facts  in  a  conference  of  experts  where  verbal  quib¬ 
bles  have  no  place. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I 
most  humbly  apologize  for  bringing  you  down  from  the  philo¬ 
sophic  heights  to  which  Mr.  Jouhaux,  in  eloquent  language,  has  just 
raised  us.  My  speech — -it  does  not  even  deserve  that  name— will 
certainly  be  more  commonplace,  but  it  will  have  the  advantage  of 
going  into  the  subject.  I  shall  explain  myself  on  this  point  in  a 
moment.  For  the  time  being,  gentlemen,  I  shall  limit  myself  to 
reading  the  motion  submitted  by  the  honorable  Mr.  Schindler  and 
myself : 

The  report  of  the  commission  on  unemployment,  a  summary  of  the  work  under¬ 
taken  by  the  various  committees,  takes  up  two  well-defined  series  of  questions,  a 
certain  number  of  which  were  not  included  in  the  agenda  of  the  conference.  Some 
deal  with  official  data  which  it  is  proposed  to  obtain  by  means  of  international 
conventions  but  which  it  would  be  infinitely  more  practical  and  more  speedy  to  have 
collected  by  the  International  Labor  Office  without  further  delay.  The  others  aim 
to  make  use  of  conventions,  recommendations  and  resolutions  for  bringing  about 
reciprocal  agreements  on  emigration,  insurance,  and  pensions,  right  of  organization, 
and  other  matters  of  extreme  importance.  But  at  the  present  moment  there  are  great 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  creating  a  uniform  system  on  account  of  legislation  in  force 
in  the  various  countries.  It  is  recommended,  therefore,  that  the  conclusions  in  the 
report  be  referred  to  the  governing  body  in  order  that  between  now  and  the  next 
session  it  may  direct  those  departments  whose  organization  may  be  considered 
necessary  to  proceed  to  the  necessary  studies  and  labors  of  preparation. 

Louis  Gu£rin. 

Dietrich  Schindler. 

It  is  not  my  idea  to  develop  this  theme  any  further.  My  colleague. 
Mr.  Schindler,  will  have  the  privilege  of  presenting  a  few  reflections 
on  certain  precise  points,  when  he  takes  the  floor  after  I  have  fin¬ 
ished.  For  my  part,  at  a  plenary  sitting  of  the  commission  on  unem¬ 
ployment,  I  made  certain  remarks  and  criticisms,  possibly  rather 
rudely,  which  I  have  no  intention  of  repeating  here  although  re¬ 
serving  the  privilege  of  repeating  them  if  need  be.  What  particu¬ 
larly  struck  me  in  the  work  of  this  commission — I  did  not  personally 
follow  its  meetings,  but  I  read  reports  of  it  very  carefully,  reports 
profusely  worded  in  a  wealth  of  documentation  and  impressive 
papers — I  repeat,  what  struck  me  was  the  fact  that  the  right  title  for 
this  commission  should  be  “The  commission  specially  concerned 
with  matters  which  do  not  concern  it.”  I  know  that  the  honorable 
chairman,  whose  courtesy  I  freely  acknowledge,  will  surely  not  take 
that  as  a  personal  criticism,  but  as  a  criticism  which,  going  beyond 
personalities,  is  concerned  with  ideas  alone. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  commission  forgot  that  we  were  not  an 
ordinary  congress,  the  sort,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  at  which  we  have 
all  had  occasion  to  be  present,  meetings  where  all  sorts  of  poor 
speakers  expatiated  on  various  propositions,  explained  at  more 
or  less  length,  and  followed  by  resolutions.  We  are  not  an  assembly 
of  this  sort,  gentlemen,  we  are  an  absolutely  new  kind  of  conference, 
which  does  not  legislate,  it  is  true,  but  which  draws  up  motions, 
recommendations  or  conventions,  to  be  put  before  the  various  parlia¬ 
ments,  perhaps  some  day  to  figure  in  the  laws.  We  should,  there¬ 
fore,  exercise  extreme  caution  in  order  not  to  discredit — if  you  will 
allow  me  the  word — our  work  by  going  beyond  the  scope  of  the  clearly 
defined  outline  prepared  by  those  appointed  for  the  purpose,  and 
who  acquitted  themselves  of  their  obligations  with  the  greatest  care. 
We  must  keep  within  the  narrow  limits  marked  out  for  us. 

I  am  not  going  to  enumerate — although  I  would  have  good  reason 
for  doing  so,  but  I  will  spare  my  respected  neighbor  (Mr.  Lazard)  that 
criticism — I  am  not  going  to  enumerate  all  the  more  or  less  extianeous, 
not  to  say  extraordinary,  subjects  which  were  presented  during  the 
meetings  of  the  commission  on  unemployment.  Doubtless,  those 
subjects  were  not  all  examined,  but  were  to  a  certain  extent  thrust 
aside.  However,  gentlemen,  I  consider  that  in  certain  cases,  when 
speaking  of  an  eloquent  orator,  even  the  mere  mention  of  certain 
subjects  is  always  wrong,  and  the  closure  is  made  to  be  used.  There 
are  cases  where  the  wisdom  of  the  leader  of  the  debates  should  inspire 
him  to  move  the  closure  for  the  express  purpose  of  getting  rid  of 


142 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


motions  such,  for  example,  as  that  abolishing  private  ownership  of 
property. 

I  shall  not  further  emphasize  this  subject,  but  simply  express  my 
regret  that  this  commission  on  unemployment  has  not  kept  within 
its  proper  limits.  Now  gentlemen,  in  conclusion,  I  beg  that  the 
honorable  gentleman  preceding  me  will  permit  me  to  make  a  few 
brief  remarks  in  connection  with  his  argument,  which  was,  I  repeat, 
both  eloquent  and  interesting.  It  is  a  subject,  gentlemen,  which  in 
my  opinion  and  in  the  opinion  of  practical  men,  goes  beyond  the 
limits  set  for  us.  The  organization  of  labor,  the  distribution  of  raw 
materials,  and  other  questions  of  the  same  nature  are  not  matters  for 
our  concern,  if  the  truth  be  confessed.  They  represent  in  a  way  the 
recasting  of  society — assuming  that  it  needs  to  be  recast — and  the 
organization,  as  Mr.  Jouhaux  has  told  us  on  different  occasions,  of  a 
new  world.  As  far  as  the  distribution  of  raw  materials  is  concerned, 
Mr.  Jouhaux  warned  us  not  to  indulge  in  academic  considerations, 
not  to  wander  astray  in  philosophical  deductions — well,  I  do  not 
wish  to  offend  him,  but  if  he  will  allow  me  to  say  so,  he  did  nothing 
but  that  in  his  speech,  he  did  nothing  but  produce  so  much  literature. 

Persons  in  contact  with  actual  life  will  tell  you  that  when  it  is  a 
question  of  the  purchase  and  the  distribution  of  raw  materials,  of 
wishing  to  bring  into  play  other  forces  than  private  initiative,  pri¬ 
vate  interests - 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France — interrupting).  That  is  just  what  I 
asked.  I  did  not  ask  for  Government  control.  I  asked  that  no 
Government  should  have  the  right  to  keep  for  itself  raw  materials 
which  were  not  indispensable  and  which  were  necessary  to  other 
countries. 

Mr.  GUERIN  (France).  My  dear  colleague,  I  see  you  are  not  a 
protagonist  of  State  control.  I  am  happy  to  hear  you  say  so,  and 
I  take  note  of  it.  Nor  am  I.  But  allow  me  to  tell  you,  that  in  act¬ 
ual  practice  if  it  is  a  question  of  really  regulating  the  distribution 
of  raw  materials,  I  defy  you  to  leave  State  intervention  aside. 
You  can  not  get  away  from  it. 

Well,  gentlemen,  the  war  has  brought  a  recent  and  painful  expe¬ 
rience  to  us  business  men  who  have  encountered  reality,  not  in 
speeches  but  in  a  practical  fashion  by  staking  our  lives,  our  money, 
and  our  personal  intervention.  But  allow  me  to  tell  you  that  this 
question  of  the  distribution  of  raw  materials,  whether  it  is  done  by 
the  State  or  by  some  organization — for  eventually  one  such  will 
have  to  be  established — well,  it  is  contrary  to  fact,  and  in  actual 
practice  will  end  in  an  increase  of  unemployment. 

During  the  war,  while  this  regulation  of  distribution  of  raw  mate¬ 
rials  was  in  effect,  I  saw  numerous  factories  idle  on  account  of  the 
substitution  of  the  State  for  individual  and  private  initiative  and 
because  raw  materials  were  held  up,  in  ports,  in  stations,  or  in  the 
countries  producing  them.  Meanwhile  agitation  over  the  matter 
came  to  nothing.  No,  gentlemen,  as  long  as  there  is  a  world, 
whether  it  is  old  or  new,  so  long  as  there  is  a  man  in  the  world,  free 
development  will  have  to  be  allowed  to  individual  liberty,  to  pri¬ 
vate  initiative,  and  to  the  play  of  interests  which  are  the  true 
incentives  to  human  activity.  These  forces  will  have  to  be  allowed 
freedom  of  development  if  practical  results  are  to  be  obtained;  and 
it  will  always  be  dangerous  to  walk — doubtless  with  eloquent  ora¬ 
tory — -but  in  the  clouds,  nevertheless,  if  I  may  say  60,  far  above 
actual  realities,  above  commonplace  necessities,  and  above  the  im¬ 
mutable  laws  which  regulate  and  assure  the  course  of  human 
prosperity. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Schindler,  Switzerland,  has  the  floor. 

Mr.  SCHINDLER  (Switzerland).  Gentlemen,  allow  me  to  add  a 
few  reflections  to  the  words  of  Mr.  Guerin,  on  the  proposal  relative 
to  reciprocity  of  treatment  for  foreign  workers. 

The  draft  convention  regulates  somewhat  prematurely  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  right  of  foreign  workers  to  the  various  sorts  of  social  insur¬ 
ance,  and  the  question  of  the  right  of  organization  of  foreign  workers. 

The  first  question  has  been  the  subject  of  specific  treaties  on 
reciprocity  between  various  States.  The  chief  difficulty  in  con¬ 


cluding  these  treaties  arises  from  the  great  differences  existing  be¬ 
tween  the  social  insurance  laws  of  the  various  countries.  These 
laws  are  still  far  from  providing  the  same  advantages.  In  these 
treaties  a  system  of  equalization  has  to  be  worked  out  which  reserves 
to  the  workers  of  a  country  with  less  advantageous  legislation  only 
a  part  of  the  benefits  received  by  workers  in  more  favored  countries. 

You  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that,  particularly  in  the  matter 
of  pensions,  systems  vary  perceptibly  from  one  country  to  another. 
Some  countries  have  voluntary  insurance,  others  have  compul¬ 
sory  insurance.  The  rates  of  pensions,  contributions,  and  State 
subsidies  are  very  different  in  different  countries. 

We  should  therefore  not  agree  to  a  draft  which  is  so  vague  as  that 
submitted  by  the  commission  on  unemployment,  and  at  the  same 
time  so  burdensome  to  countries  enjoying  more  advanced  social 
legislation.  It  is  to  be  desired  that  the  subject  figure  on  the  agenda 
of  a  future  conference,  but  it  is  impossible  to  settle  the  matter  at 
the  end  of  this  conference  without  profound  study  and  without  the 
collecting  and  preparing  of  evidence,  particularly  since  the  ques¬ 
tion  did  not  figure  on  the  agenda  of  this  conference. 

The  question  of  granting  the  right  of  organization  to  foreign 
workers  is  a  matter  of  internal  policy  which  each  State  should  settle 
for  itself,  with  regard  for  its  own  internal  safety.  Although  the  right 
of  organization  appears  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  it  does  not  appear  on 
the  agenda  of  this  conference,  and  therefore  can  not  be  treated  here. 

For  these  various  reasons  I  second  the  motion  of  Mr.  Gu4rin, 
requesting  that  the  report  of  the  commission  on  unemployment  be 
referred  to  the  governing  body.  I  insist,  however,  that  two  separate 
votes  be  taken,  one  for  convention  “A,”  relative  to  measures  against 
unemployment,  and  the  other  on  convention  “B,”  relative  to  reci¬ 
procity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Draper,  of  the  Canadian  delegation,  is 
recognized. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Mr.  President  and  members  of  the 
conference,  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  reference  to  a  state¬ 
ment  presented  here  this  morning  by  Mr.  Blake  Robertson,  repre¬ 
senting  the  employers’  group  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  I  would 
not  have  taken  up  the  time  of  the  conference  at  all  had  not  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  recognition  of  the  trade-unions  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
been  referred  to.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  in  our  country  we  have 
some  2,000  trade-unions,  with  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  membership, 
and  that  in  nearly  all  the  industries  in  that  country  the  trade-unions 
have  agreements  with  the  different  employers,  I  did  not  see  why  the 
last  part  of  the  statement  by  Mr.  Robertson  should  be  placed  before 
this  conference.  I  do  not  propose  to  allow  it  to  go  uncontradicted, 
for  fear  that  a  misapprehension  might  be  carried  away  by  the  dele¬ 
gates  to  their  respective  countries  regarding  the  Canadian  labor 
situation. 

Now,  what  I  take  particular  exception  to  is  the  latter  part  of  this 
document.  We  are  told  that  the  Canadian  employers  admit  the 
right  of  employees  to  join  any  lawful  organization.  I  may  say  that 
our  organizations  in  Canada,  while  not  registered  under  the  trade- 
unions  act,  are  all  lawful  organizations. 

Then,  in  paragraph  B  of  the  same  quoted  statement,  Mr.  Robertson 
says  that  the  employers  desire  the  right  to  maintain  their  plants  as 
open  shops  and  not  recognize  unions.  Of  course  the  employers  may 
desire  that  right,  but  I  want  to  say  that  it  is  not  followed  out  in 
practice  in  Canada.  For  instance,  take  the  Canadian  Pacific  Rail¬ 
way,  with  which  all  the  delegates  to  this  conference  are  acquainted 
as  one  of  the  greatest  railways  in  the  world.  That  immense  organi¬ 
zation  has  agreements  with  all  its  employees  in  nearly  every  branch 
of  its  industry. 

I  might  go  on  enumerating,  if  I  so  desired,  but  in  the  last  para¬ 
graph  he  says: 

Employers  should  not  be  required  to  negotiate  except  directly  with  their  own 
employees  or  groups  of  their  own  employees. 

That  is  the  paragraph  upon  which  the  trade-unions  of  our  country 
ana  the  employers  have  fought  many  battles  in  the  past,  and  if  this 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


143 


ib  the  policy  of  the  employers  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  I  want  to 
say  to  them  quite  frankly  that  there  will  be  no  industrial  peace 
in  the  country  as  long  as  this  is  the  policy  they  lay  down. 

Last  spring,  in  the  months  of  May  and  June,  I  think,  a  strike  was 
precipitated  in  the  city  of  Winnipeg,  just  owing  to  a  position  taken 
by  the  manufacturers  in  the  iron  trades  of  the  city  of  Winnipeg 
where  they  refused  to  meet  their  employees  and  refused  the  right  of 
collective  bargaining.  As  a  result  there  existed  for  six  or  eight 
weeks  a  strike  that  assumed  almost  the  proportions  of  a  revolution, 
and  which  caused  the  Dominion  Government,  the  provincial  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  the  municipality  of  the  city  of  Winnipeg  to  take  part 
in  it,  and  it  was  only  after  some  time  that  the  strike  was  defeated. 

The  PRESIDENT  (interrupting  Mr.  Draper).  Because  of  the 
short  time  left  at  our  disposal,  I  believe  that  it  would  be  well  not 
to  be  concerned  here  with  what  may  have  been  done  at  Winnipeg. 
We  should  keep  to  our  schedule,  or  otherwise  we  shall  not  finish. 

Mr,  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  ask  your  indulgence,  Mr.  President; 
but  the  representative  of  the  employers,  Mr.  Robertson,  having 
raised  the  question,  I  considered  it  my  duty  to  reply.  When  I  arose 
I  said  I  would  be  very  short,  so  I  was  just  about  concluding  when  I 
was  interrupted  by  the  chairman.  And  I  will  conclude  in  this  way: 
I  think  the  time  has  passed  when  such  statements  as  these  should 
be  put  on  record,  and  if  we  are  to  have  industrial  peace  in  our  country 
in  the  future,  it  will  be  by  the  employers  recognizing  the  rights  of  the 
trades-unions  to  enter  into  collective  bargaining  or  any  other  kind 
of  an  agreement  that  will  suit  their  membership. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  time  has  come  to  debate  and  vote  upon 
the  several  resolutions  contained  in  the  report. 

If  I  am  not  mistaken,  the  motion  submitted  by  Mr.  Guerin  and 
Mr.  Schindler  should  take  precedence,  and  then  be  immediately 
followed  by  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Baldesi.  The  floor  is  open  for 
discussion.  If  no  one  requests  the  floor  and  since  no  amendment 
has  been  presented,  I  ask  the  assembly  if  it  does  not  believe  we 
should  proceed  to  a  vote? 

[Mr.  di  Palma  (Italy)  requests  the  floor.] 

As  closure  has  not  yet  been  voted,  the  question  is  still  open  to 
discussion,  and  I  grant  the  floor  to  Mr.  di  Palma,  who  has  just 
requested  it. 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  shall  be  very  brief 
and  I  shall  speak  only  on  the  reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign 
and  native  workers.  One  very  important  question,  which  has  been 
constantly  raised  by  the  Government  delegate  of  Switzerland,  has 
been  brought  before  the  conference.  That  is  to  say,  the  words 
used  in  the  draft  convention  presented  to  us  by  the  commission  on 
unemployment  are  very  wide,  so  the  matter  is  not  precisely  stated. 

I  think,  on  the  other  hand,  the  same  delegate  has  declared  that  in 
principle  he  has  nothing  against  the  spirit  of  the  draft  convention. 
So,  after  having  spoken  with  several  delegates  interested  in  the 
matter,  I  present  as  an  amendment  to  the  conclusion  of  the  com¬ 
mission  the  following: 

The  Washington  conference  recommends  to  the  States,  members  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Organization,  to  admit,  by  means  of  special  agreements,  to  the  benefit 
of  their  labor  laws  and  regulations,  as  well  as  the  right  of  lawful  organizations,  the 
workers  belonging  to  one  of  these  States  and  employed  in  another,  together  with  their 
families.  The  conference  decides  that  the  question  of  transforming  this  recommen¬ 
dation  into  a  convention  be  examined  by  the  next  conference  in  1920. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  you  are  all  familiar  with  the 
Guerin-Schindler  motion.  It  was  not  only  printed  in  yesterday’s 
report,  but  it  has  been  read  both  in  English  and  French.  I  shall 
therefore  put  the  Guerin-Schindler  motion  to  a  vote. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  What  page? 

The  Clerk.  In  the  English  text,  page  326  [Provisional  Record], 
If  it  is  desired,  I  will  read  it 

■‘It  is  recommended,  therefore,  that  the  conclusions  in  the  report  be  referred  to 
the  governing  body,  in  order  that  between  now  and  the  next  session  it  may  direct 
those  departments  whose  organization  may  be  considered  necessary  to  proceed  to 
the  necessary  studies  and  labors  of  preparation." 


Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Guerin  and  Mr.  Schindler  if  they  accept  my  amendment,  because 
if  they. accept  my  amendment  then  it  is  useless  to  put  their  motion 
to  a  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  Mr.  di  Palma  wish  to  repeat  what  he 
said  a  few  moments  since? 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  ask  Mr.  Guerin  and 
Mr.  Schindler  if  they  accept  my  amendment,  which  is  almost  to  the 
same  effect  as  their  motion,  inasmuch  as  my  amendment,  considers 
the  reciprocity  convention  as  a  recommendation,  and,  furthermore, 
I  support  the  creation  of  an  administrative  commission  to  study  the 
matter  and  refer  it  to  the  conference  of  1920.  The  intent  of  the  two 
proposals  being  the  same,  I  ask  whether  they  are  willing  to  save  some 
time  by  voting  only  on  the  amendment. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  allow  me  to  request  that  there 
be  a  clear  understanding  and  no  confusion  of  thought  at  this  point. 
Mr.  di  Palma  states  that  there  is  a  similarity,  a  resemblance,  a  con¬ 
nection,  perhaps  an  identity,  between  his  proposal  and  that  of  Mr. 
Guerin  and  Mr.  Schindler.  Now,  as  far  as  I  see  it,  after  reading  the 
Guerin-Schindler  motion,  the  vote  which  is  going  to  be  proposed  is 
of  exceptional  gravity.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  it  suggests  no  more, 
no  less,  than  the  referring  of  all  the  questions  treated  in  Mr.  Lazard’s 
report  to  the  International  Labor  Office;  that  is  to  say,  that  the 
entire  commission  and  Mr.  Lazard’s  report  shall  for  the  time  being 
be  set  aside.  Is  that  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Guerin- 
Schindler  motion? 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  As  Mr.  Guerin  has  gone  out  no  one 
can  answer  your  question. 

A  Voice  in  the  hall.  His  substitute  is  present. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Having  learned  from  the  answer  to  my  ques¬ 
tion  that  such  is  the  interpretation  of  the  Guerin-Schindler  motion,  I 
now  ask  Mr.  di  Palma,  that  the  matter  may  be  absolutely  clear,  if 
that  is  indeed  his  idea,  and  if  he  wishes  the  whole  question  to  be 
referred  to  the  international  office. 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  No. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Then  there  is  neither  affinity  nor  identity 
between  the  two. 

Therefore,  we  have  to  deal  with  the  Guerin-Schindler  motion.  It 
is  understood  that  this  motion  refers  the  whole  work  to  the  inter¬ 
national  office.  As  that  point  is  now  quite  clear,  I  shall  put  the 
Guerin-Schindler  motion  to  a  vote. 

All  delegates  in  favor  of  the  Gudrin-Schindler  motion  please  raise 
their  right  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

All  those  opposed  to  the  Gudrin -Schindler  motion  please  raise 
their  right  hands. 

[The  votes  are  counted.] 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  vote  is  41  against  and  33 
for.  The  motion  is  lost. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  are  now  confronted  by  the  Baldesi 
motion.  The  president  has  in  his  hands  a  request  for  a  record  vote 
on  this  matter.  As  the  translation  made  into  both  French  and 
English  yesterday  of  the  motion  presented  in  Italian  by  Mr.  Baldesi 
was  not  a  happy  one,  Mr.  Baldesi ’s  motion  is  going  to  be  read  to  you 
as  corrected,  in  both  French  and  English. 

[The  clerk  then  read  the  Baldesi  motion  as  follows:] 

Considering  tbat  the  question  of  unemployment  is  closely  related  to  that  of  the 
distribution  of  raw  materials  and  the  means  of  maritime  transport  and  freight  rates; 
considering  further  that  the  question  can  only  be  effectively  dealt  with  by  the  council 
of  the  League  of  Nations,  it  is  recommended  that  the  council  should  undertake 
to  examine  and  solve  the  problem. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  standing  orders  authorize  a  record 
vote,  and  we  are  therefore  going  to  vote  on  the  Baldesi  motion  by  a 
record  vote. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  shall  call  out  the  names  of 
the  delegates.  In  cases  where  substitutes  are  acting  they  will,  of 
course,  be  entitled  to  reply  on  behalf  of  their  delegates. 


144 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


[The  result  of  the  roll  call  was  as  follows:] 


Argentina: 

Or.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americb  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

China: 

Mr.  Y ung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

France: 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Great  Britain:  * 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 


No — i3. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Marayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Nicaragua: 

Seaor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 

N  orvvay : 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos6  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerdo. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouiteh. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth 
Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Yes-40. 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenaeht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 


The  PRESIDENT.  We  shall  now  proceed,  if  you  will,  to  a  vote 
on  the  proposals  relative  to  prevention  of  unemployment. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  In  order  that  we  may  proceed  to  deal 
with  these  important  proposals  contained  in  the  conventions,  recom¬ 
mendations,  and  resolutions,  I  would  move  that  we  take  them  up 
one  by  one,  clause  by  clause;  then  the  amendments  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  in  connection  with  the  appropriate  resolutions.  If  there 
are  no  objections,  we  can  pass  quickly  over  the  ones  to  which  there 
are  no  objections. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  was  the  president’s  intention  to  proceed 
gradually,  as  Mr.  Rowell  suggests,  i.  e.,  to  put  the  draft  convention 
to  a  vote,  asking  if  any  delegates  wish  the  floor  on  the  first,  second, 
or  third  articles,  of  which  this  convention  consists.  If  any  delegate 


unshed  the  floor  he  would  have  it.  If  no  request  were  made  for  the 
floor,  then  the  entire  draft  convention  would  be  voted  on. 

The  conference  now  has  before  it  article  1  of  the  draft  convention, 
relative  to  the  prevention  of  unemployment.  This  draft  convention 
consists  of  three  articles.  Does  anyone  wish  the  floor  on  any  of  these 
three  articles? 

Mr.  ARMENTEROS  (Cuba — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  request  the 
reporter  to  kindly  explain  if  the  draft  convention  on  unemploy¬ 
ment  applies  to  agricultural  occupations  as  well  as  to  indus¬ 
trial  occupations,  and  whether  the  first  draft  recommendation 
refers  to  employment  agencies  dealing  with  commerce  and  domestic 
labor,  and,  in  the  third  place,  whether  the  statistics  called 
for  in  the  second  paragraph  of  the  draft  resolutions  regarding  agri¬ 
culture  are  in  any  case  to  be  submitted  to  the  Institute  of  Agriculture 
at  Rome  by  the  Governments,  or  directly'  to  the  International  Labor 
Office. 

The  PRESIDENT.  One  observation,  gentlemen.  As  one  more 
than  half  the  votes  are  required  for  the  vote  to  be  valid,  you  are  re¬ 
quested  not  to  leave  the  room,  lest  the  vote  be  rendered  null  and 
void  by  the  absence  of  delegates. 

The  Cuban  delegation  has  requested  an  explanation.  I  recognize 
the  reporter,  Mr.  Lazard. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  Theanswer  to  be  made  to  the  Cuban  dele¬ 
gation  is  this:  The  draft  convention  relative  to  prevention  of  unem¬ 
ployment  concerns  agricultural  workers  as  well  as  others.  Meas¬ 
ures  against  unemployment  do  not  distinguish  between  the  various 
classes  of  workers. 

Secondly,  the  profit-taking  employment  agencies,  against  which 
we  are  inviting  the  Governments  to  protest,  do  not  include 
commercial  or  domestic  agencies.  It  is  the  concern  of  each  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  decide  what  measures  shall  be  taken  with  regard  to  this 
particular  category  of  agencies,  but  the  recommendation  addressed 
to  them  is  a  recommendation  warning  them  against  the  abuses  of 
such  agencies  of  whatever  sort,  and  recommending  to  them,  in  any 
case  to  allow  these  agencies  to  operate  only  under  licenses. 

The  argument  on  the  statistics  of  agricultural  unemployment 
can  be  answered  as  follows:  It  should  not  be  understood  that  sta¬ 
tistics  on  agricultural  unemployment  must  first  pass  through  the 
International  Agricultural  Institute  in  order  to  be  sent  to  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office.  What  we  wished  to  say  was  simply  this: 
That  as  pertinent  information  on  the  subject  of  agricultural  unem¬ 
ployment  was  already  assembled  at  the  International  Institute,  this 
source  of  information  should  not  be  disregarded. 

Mr.  ARMENTEROS  (Cuba).  Thank  you,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Am  I  correct  in  understanding  that 
what  is  now  before  the  conference  is  a  draft  convention  on  unemploy¬ 
ment  and  not  the  resolutions;  that  they  will  come  subsequently? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  draft  convention,  which,  as  I  have  said, 
contains  three  articles. 

Mr.  ROWELL.  Then,  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  make  one  obser¬ 
vation  in  reference  to  article  2  particularly.  While  we  are  doing  in 
Canada  all  that  article  2  calls  upon  the  signatories  to  the  convention 
to  do,  I  want  to  record  the  opinion  that  the  International  Labor 
Organization  is  making  a  mistake  in  endeavoring  to  secure  signatures 
to  conventions  to  regulate  details  of  domestic  administration  of 
labor  services  in  the  different  countries,  and  that  ultimately  we  will 
provoke  reaction  against  our  action  if  we  undertake  to  go  too  minutely 
into  matters  of  purely  domestic  concern  in  the  different  countries 
involved — how  they  operate  their  labor  exchanges.  Personally  I 
agree  with  the  policy  outlined  and  we  have  already  adopted  it,  but 
I  think  it  is  unwise  to  undertake  to  regulate  it  by  international 
convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  reporter  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Lazard, 
is  recognized. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  I  only  wish  to  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  that 
the  commission  did  not  consider  details  essential,  but  that  it  was 
considered  essential  to  an  effective  system  of  employment  agencies, 
first,  that  it  should  be  a  public  institution;  second,  that  it  should 


INTERNATIONAL  L 

have  the  cooperation  of  employers’  and  workers'  organizations, 
which  could  act  as  consulting  bodies;  and  third,  that  there  should 
be  international  coordination.  The  commission  considered  these 
three  points  essential,  and  1  take  pleasure  in  noting  that  this  is  also 
the  opinion  of  Canada,  so  far  as  Canada  specifically  is  concerned. 
1  therefore  consider  that  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  inter¬ 
national  obligation  be  established  in  this  respect,  so  that  public 
employment  agencies,  the  importance  of  which  is  recognized  by 
eveivbody,  may  be  definitely  organized  according  to  these  three 
great  principles.  It  is  not  at  all  a  question  of  entering  into  details, 
but  simply  of  determining  three  principles  for  an  organization  of 
this  sort. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Like  Mr.  Rowell,  I  ask  permission  to  say 
a  few  words,  as  a  delegate  from  Italy,  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  in 
Italy  we  already  have  part  of  what  this  article  2  demands.  I  do 
not  wish  to  go  into  detail.  I  shall  not  take  two  minutes  of  the  time 
of  the  conference.  1  shall  simply  ask  to  have  a  few  words  entered 
on  the  record  as  to  what  we  have  accomplished  in  Italy  on  this 
subject. 

The  delegate  from  Brazil  is  recognized. 

Mr.  FRANCO  (Brazil).  Mr.  President,  I  desire  first,  to  protest 
against  the  fact  that  the  names  of  the  delegates  from  Brazil  were 
not  called  when  the  votes  were  taken,  and  I  request  that  the 
necessary  measures  be  taken  so  that  the  names  of  the  delegates  may 
be  included  in  the  record  vote  of  the  members  present  at  this  session. 

We  are  now  going  to  vote  on  the  proposal  dealing  with  the  draft 
convention  against  unemployment.  As  you  have  announced  that 
delegates  might  speak  upon  the  articles  of  this  draft  convention, 

1  shall  take  the  liberty  of  saying  a  few  words  on  the  subject.  This 
question  of  unemployment  is  not  of  direct  interest  to  Brazil,  which 
is  a  new  country,  where  work  is  abundant  and  workers  lacking,  in 
general.  However,  we  cannot  give  our  full  support  to  the  articles 
of  the  convention  as  they  are  drawn  up. 

Regarding  the  second  article,  in  which  it  is  provided  that — 

The  States  ratifying  the  present  convention  or  acceding  thereto  shall  establish  in 
their  respective  countries  a  system  of  free  public  employment  agencies  under  the 
oontrol  of  a  central  authority, 

— I  desire  to  make  known  to  the  assembly  that  in  the  Bureau  of 
Agriculture  of  Brazil  the  Federal  Government  supports  and  main¬ 
tains  the  special  department  of  labor  under  its  direct  control.  This 
department  is  in  a  position  to  render  all  the  services  which  in  article 

2  of  the  convention  are  asked  of  the  bureau  which  the  States  are  to 
maintain  in  the  respective  countries  for  the  gratuitous  placing  of 
workers. 

Committees  which  shall  include  representatives  of  employers  and  representatives 
of  the  workers  shall  be  appointed  to  advise  on  matters  concerning  the  carrying  on  of 
the  work  of  such  agencies. 

Mr.  President,  I  believe  that  these  committees  are  not  necessary 
in  Brazil.  I  do  not  even  understand  how  one  could  manage  to  com¬ 
bine  the  services  rendered  by  the  State  with  the  services  of  these 
committees,  which  are  to  be  composed  of  representatives  of  the  em¬ 
ployers  and  representatives  of  the  workers. 

On  article  3,  in  which  it  is  provided  that — 

The  States  ratifying  the  present  convention  or  acceding  thereto  which  have  estab¬ 
lished  systems  of  unemployment  insurance  shall,  upon  terms  being  agreed  between 
the  States  concerned,  make  arrangements  whereby  workers  belonging  to  one  such 
State  and  employed  in  another  such  State  shall  be  admitted  to  the  same  rates  of  bene¬ 
fit  of  such  insurance  as  those  established  for  the  workers  of  the  latter  State 

— I  must  say,  Mr.  President,  that  this  provision  is  quite  useless  so  far 
as  Brazil  is  concerned,  because  our  federal  constitution  establishes 
perfect  equality  between  the  natives  and  the  foreigner  who  has  a 
domicile  in  or  who  lives  in  the  country.  Consequently  we  have 
full  legal  and  constitutional  protection  on  the  part  of  the  Government 
and  the  laws,  a  protection  which  is  extended  to  foreigners  as  well  as 
to  natives.  • 

r  considered  myself  bound  to  give  this  information  to  the  assembly, 
and  I  shall  close  by  venturing  to  ask  once  more  that  the  necessary 


ABOR  CONFERENCE  145 

measures  be  taken  to  include  the  names  of  the  delegates  from  Brazil 
in  the  record  vote  of  the  members  present  at  this  session. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  statement  of  the  delegates  from  Brazil, 
who  protest  against  the  fact  that  their  names  were  not  called  for  the 
record  vote,  that  their  names  were  not  called  in  voting  on  the  Baldesi 
motion,  taking  into  account  the  division  of  the  votes,  40  against  43, 
might  have  considerable  importance.  I  may  perhaps  be  permitted 
to  ask  the  delegates  from  Brazil  how  they  would  have  voted. 

I  must  say  that  this  neglect  to  call  upon  the  delegates  from  Brazil 
was  through  no  fault  of  the  Chair  or  the  Secretary  General.  The 
credentials  of  these  gentlemen  have  not  yet  reached  the  secretariat. 
In  that  case  it  seems  to  me  that  the  vote  can  not  be  changed,  and  the 
delegates  from  Brazil  will  doubtless  have  a  later  opportunity  of  giving 
their  opinion. 

We  find  ourselves  again,  therefore,  confronted  with  this  draft  con¬ 
vention,  and  if  nobody  calls  for  the  floor  I  shall  put  it  to  a  vote. 

[Nobody  calls  for  the  floor.] 

Those  delegates  here  present  in  favor  of  the  draft  convention  in 
three  articles,  which  is  to  be  found  under  letter  A  of  the  proposals 
dealing  with  unemployment,  raise 'their  right  hands. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  Article  by  article,  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  already  offered  the  floor  for  anyone 
to  give  his  reasons  on  the  three  articles,  and  nobody  asked  for  rec¬ 
ognition  . 

If  Mr.  Carlier  wishes,  I  will  put  the  articles  to  a  vote  one  at  a  time. 
I  had  explained  to  Mr.  Rowell  how  we  were  to  proceed;  if  Mr. 
Carlier  desires  to  proceed  differently,  I  will  call  for  a  vote  on  article 
1  of  the  draft  convention. which  I  have  already  sufficiently  explained. 

Those  in  favor  of  article  1  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  to  article  1  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  article  is  carried  by  63  votes. 

I  shall  now  put  article  2  to  a  vote.  Those  in  favor  raise  their 
right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  to  article  2  raise  their  hands. 

Article  2  is  adopted  unanimously.  Now  I  shall  put  article  3  to  a 
vote. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  on  a  point  of 
order — have  we  the  necessary  quorum  to  carry  article  2? 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Yes;  we  have. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  in  favor  of  article  3  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  to  article  3  please  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Article  3  is  carried  by  51  votes  against  15. 

Now  we  will  proceed  to  the  draft  recommendation.  Shall  we  vote 
article  by  article? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  suggest  that  we  vote  article 
by  article. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  anyone  desire  to  speak  on  article  1  of 
the  draft  recommendation? 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  may  I  ask  the 
reporter  of  the  commission  a  question  in  regard  to  the  first  draft 
recommendation?  I  should  like  to  have  his  \iews  as  to  whether 
the  committee  desired  or  considered  that  under  this  article  coopera¬ 
tive  societies  established  by  employers  to  obtain  labor,  which  charge 
fees  but  which  make  no  profits,  are  included  in  the  article. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Lazard  is  recognized. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  The  reply  to  that  is  as  follows:  Any 
cooperative  society  created  by  employers,  which  makes  no  charges 
to  workers  and  makes  no  profits,  was  not  intended  in  the  draft  recom¬ 
mendation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  there  any  further  explanations  requested 
or  other  observations  to  be  made  concerning  article  1? 


146865°— 20 - 10 


146 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Article  1  will  be  voted  upon.  Those  in  favor  please  raise  their 
hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  please  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Article  1  is  carried  by  51  votes  against  2. 

Does  anyone  wish  to  speak  on  article  2  of  the  draft  recommen¬ 
dation? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to  ask  of 
the  reporter  of  the  commission  an  explanation  as  to  the  meaning  of 
this  second  recommendation.  The  recommendation  is: 

The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  to  the  States,  members  of  the 
permanent  organization,  that  the  recruiting  of  bodies  of  workers  in  one  of  these 
States  with  a  view  to  their  employment  in  another,  should  not  be  permitted,  except 
by  mutual  agreement  between  the  countries  concerned,  and  after  consultation  with 
employers  and  workers  in  each  country  in  the  industries  concerned. 


Who  would  be  the  party  who  would  initiate  the  consultation 
with  the  employers  and  workers  in  the  countries  concerned? 
Would  it  be  the  employers  desiring  to  secure  workers  from  another 
country?  Would  it  be  the  Government  of  which  those  employers 
were  citizens,  or  would  it  be  the  Government  in  which  these  em¬ 
ployers  and  workers  resided  who  would  conduct  the  consultation 
with  them?  I  submit  whatever  the  meaning  is,  it  should  be  made 
more  clear  than  the  recommendation  now  makes  it.  It  leaves  a 
very  important  question  unsettled  as  the  recommendation  now 
reads. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  The  reply  to  be  made  to  this  is  first  of 
all  to  excuse  ourselves  for  a  doubtful  wording.  This  must  always  be 
avoided,  and  we  do  try  to  avoid  it.  What  the  commission  had  in  view 
was  this:  The  organization  of  this  recruiting  of  large  numbers  of 
workers  ought  to  be  prepared  for  by  an  agreement  between  the  Gov¬ 
ernments  interested,  and  the  Governments  interested  ought,  by 
agreement  or  supervision,  either  with  regard  to  the  principle  of 
foreign  recruiting  or  with  regard  to  each  successive  act — the  Govern¬ 
ments  interested  ought,  I  say,  to  consult  their  respective  organiza¬ 
tions  before  giving  their  authorization. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Does  anyone  wish  to  speak  on  article  2  of 
the  recommendations? 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  wish  to  ask  whether  it  is  fully  under¬ 
stood  that  consultation  is  not  to  be  requested  for  each  introduction 
of  workers,  but  on  the  general  plan  of  introduction.  For  instance, 
in  the  Franco-Italian  agreement,  the  introduction  of  a  considerable 
number  of  workers  will  be  determined  after  consultation,  but  it  is 
not  provided  that  for  each  worker  introduced  there  shall  be  a  special 
consultation,  either  by  the  employer  or  by  some  other  person.  It 
is  the  general  plan  of  introduction,  it  is  the  general  numbers  which 
are  intended  by  this  consultation,  and  it  is  not  the  case  of  each 
person  in  particular. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  The  reply  to  this  is  that  the  commission 
had  anticipated  a  more  detailed  recommendation,  which  distin¬ 
guished  precisely  between  the  general  arrangement  and  the  intro- 
d  uction  of  one  group  or  another  of  workers.  The  commission  set  aside 
tliis  idea,  preferring  to  formulate  its  recommendation  in  very  general 
terms,  and  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  bind  the  Governments  too  specifi¬ 
cally.  It  is  merely  pointed  out  that  the  introduction  of  workers  shall 
not  take  place  without  the  advice  of  the  organizations  interested. 
Is  it  sufficient  that  they  be  consulted  in  a  general  way  on  the  whole 
program,  or  must  they  be  consulted  upon  each  request  for  admission? 
The  recommendation  did  not  go  into  those  details,  and  consequently 
the  States  have  a  free  hand  in  that  respect. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  nobody  desires  to  speak,  I  shall  call  for  a 
vote  on  the  question. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  shall  consider  the  reply  of  the 
reporter  as  an  acquiescence  in  what  I  have  maintained,  for  we  are 
determining  obligations;  it  is  not  said  that  we  shall  consult  in 
every  case,  and  that  would  be  quite  impracticable.  I  am  obliged 
to  think  that  we  are  only"  to  consult  on  the  general  program. 


The  PRESIDENT.  I  shall  call  for  a  vote  on  article  2  of  the  draft 
recommendations.  Those  who  are  in  favor  will  please  raise  their 
hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  to  article  2  of  the  draft  recommendations  are 
requested  to  raise  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Article  2  of  the  draft  recommendation  is  carried  by  34  against  9. 
Mr.  EARLIER  (Belgium).  There  is  no  quorum. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  There  are  some  who  are  not  voting 
The  PRESIDENT.  Does  that  count  as  a  vote? 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  No;  but  it  counts  as  a  person  present. 
The  PRESIDENT.  Those  who  have  not  voted  are  requested  to 
raise  their  hands. 

[Non voters  counted.] 

The  vote  is  void. 

Shall  we  meet  at  half-past  2  to-day? 

Voices.  Yes. 

[Whereupon,  at  1  p.  m.,  adjournment  was  taken  until  2.30  p.  m.] 
The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mi.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Amerieo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Michel  Ldvie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Cartier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Dr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franoc. 

Dr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Dr.  Fausto  Ferraz. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons). 

Mr.  Arthur  Martel  (substitute  for 
Mr.  P.  M.  Draper). 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes. 
Czecbo-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Oersted  (substitute  for  Mr. 
H.  Vestesen). 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 
Finland: 

Judge  Nillo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasfvuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gu6rin. 

Mr.  I.4on  Jouhaux. 

Gaeat  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  A.  J.  C.  Ross  (substitute  for  Mr- 
D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 


Great  Britain — Concluded. 

Mr.  J.  Sexton  (substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Mrs.  B.  Kjelsberg  (substitute  fot 
Judge  Johan  Castberg). 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 

Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  A.  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos4  Barbdsa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


147 


Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouiteh). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 


6outh  Africa— Concluded. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Mr.  J.  Gascon  Marin  (substitute  for 
Viscount  de  Eza). 

Mr.  Pedro  Sangro  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada). 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 


Spain — Concluded. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 

Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 


Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Hg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 
Mr.  C6sar  Zumeta. 


TWENTY-FIRST  SESSION— WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER  26,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  2.55  o’clock  p.  m.,  November  26,  1919, 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  vice  president  of  the 
conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Might  I  call  the  conference  to  order,  please. 
The  secretary  will  read  some  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  There  was  a  mistake  in  the 
bulletin  issued  last  night  in  regard  to  the  meeting  of  the  workers’ 
delegates  which  is  being  summoned.  The  meeting  in  question  is  to 
take  place  at  2.30  to-morrow  afternoon,  Thursday,  in  the  New  Navy 
Building,  room  1022. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  as  I  understand,  you  have  got  as  far  as 
the  first  draft  recommendation;  and  inasmuch  as  that  did  not  get  a 
vote,  or  there  were  not  sufficient  votes  cast  to  constitute  a  majority  of 
the  delegates,  that  fails.  We  must  now  take  a  vote  on  the  following 
draft  recommendations;  that  is,  2,  3,  and  4,  and  after  that  on  the  reso¬ 
lutions,  which  are  numbered  1,  2,  3,  and  4,  and  still  further,  the  draft 
convention  on  reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers.  The  rule 
in  regard  to  voting  is  that  we  must  have  at  least  a  majority,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  article  403  (17)  of  the  treaty.  A  vote  is  not  valid  if  the 
number  of  votes  cast  is  less  than  half  the  number  of  delegates  attend¬ 
ing  the  conference.  This  number  shall  be  determined  after  the  pres¬ 
entation  of  the  brief  report  referred  to  in  paragraph  2.  Now,  that 
means  we  must  have  half  of  60,  because  60  is  half  the  number  of  dele¬ 
gates  attending  the  conference,  and  we  must  have  a  majority  of  that 
60;  that  is  to  say,  there  must  be  60  votes  cast,  and  in  order  to  carry  a 
draft  recommendation  or  resolution,  you  must  have  a  majority  of 
that  60. 

The  first  resolution  upon  which  I  should  like  you  to  vote  is  upon 
page  295  of  Saturday’s  proceedings  [Provisional  Record],  and  reads 
as  follows: 

The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  to  the  States  members  of  the 
permanent  organization  that  the  recruiting  of  bodies  of  workers  in  one  of  these 
States - 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  a  point  of 
order.  That  has  been  dealt  with. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Let  me  just  proceed,  Mr.  Crawford.  After 
I  have  read  it,  you  can  move  a  point  of  order  if  you  want  to,  but 
not  in  the  middle  of  reading. 

with  a  view  to  their  employment  in  another  such  state  should  not  be  permitted 
except  by  mutual  agreement  between  the  countries  concerned  and  after  consultation 
with  employers  and  workers  in  each  country  in  the  industries  concerned. 

Now,  we  will  have  the  translation. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  draw  your  attention  to  article  10  of  the  standing  orders,  dealing 
with  the  right  to  address  the  conference.  The  fifth  paragraph  says: 

A  delegate  may  rise  to  a  point  of  order  at  any  time,  and  such  point  of  order  shall 
immediately  be  decided  by  the  President  in  accordance  with  the  standing  orders. 

I  claim,  when  I  arose  a  minute  ago,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  a  right 
to  put  my  point  of  order.  My  point  of  order  is  that  No.  2  has  been 
dealt  with,  and  when  the  conference  adjourned  we  were  proceeding 
to  discuss  No.  3. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  understand,  Mr.  Crawford,  that  a  snap 
vote  was  taken  just  as  the  conference  was  separating,  and  there¬ 
fore  it  would  be  fair  to  give  the  conference  another  opportunity 
of  voting  on  this  resolution. 


Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman,  you 
should  ask  the  conference  to  give  it  permission  to  move. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Will  anyone  move  either  one  way  or  the 
other? 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  must  express 
the  opinion  that  the  vote  which  you  referred  to  just  now  was  not  in 
any  sense  a  snap  vote.  It  seemed  to  me  that  the  number  present 
was  very  similar  to  that  present  when  the  other  resolutions  came  up, 
but  a  number  abstained  from  voting.  In  view  of  that  I  would  move, 
Mr.  President,  that  the  vote  that  was  taken  on  recommendation 
No.  2  stand  and  that  we  proceed  to  discuss  No.  3. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Can  I  get  a  second  to  Mr.  Gemmill’s 
motion? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  second  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  moved  and  seconded  that  the  vote 
taken  before  lunch  time  stand  as  having  been  valid. 

Mr.  SOKAL  (Poland).  Mr.  President,  I  request  a  new  vote  on 
recommendation  No.  2,  because  before  lunch  the  assembly  was 
not  complete,  and  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  vote  once  more  on 
the  second  recommendation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  take  it  that  is  a  negative,  Mr.  Sokal. 
You  will  vote  against  Mr.  Gemmill,  of  course.  Mr.  Gemmill  now 
moves  that  the  vote  cast  before  lunch  time  stand  as  conclusive. 

Will  all  those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Gemmill’s  proposition  please  signify 
by  raising  their  hands? 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  against  Mr.  Gemmill,  please  signify. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  am  afraid  they  do  not  under¬ 
stand,  sir. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Down  a  moment,  please.  I  am  afraid  that 
there  is  a  misunderstanding  as  to  what  you  are  voting  on.  Let 
me  try  and  put  it  as  simply  as  I  can.  You  took  a  vote  on  draft 
recommendation  No.  2  before  lunch.  I  understand  that  there  were 
only  43  votes  cast,  and  the  suggestion  was  made  to  me  when  I  took 
the  chair  that  in  consequence  of  the  small  number  of  votes  cast,  and 
as  a  number  of  delegates  had  left  to  go  to  lunch — including  myself — 
that  there  should  be  another  vote  taken  on  that  No.  2  draft 
recommendation.  Mr.  Gemmill  says  we  don’t  want  another  vote; 
if  delegates  were  not  here,  that  is  their  fault,  and  that  therefore  the 
vote  cast  before  lunch  time  should  be  regarded  as  conclusive.  Now, 
voting  for  Mr.  Gemmill  is  voting  that  the  vote  taken  before  lunch 
time  is  conclusive  and  that  therefore  no  further  vote  must  be  taken. 
Is  that  understood? 

May  we  have  a  vote  now? 

Mr.  ROSS  (Great  Britain).  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
hesitation  on  the  part  of  members  in  voting  either  for  or  against  Mr. 
Gemmill’s  motion,  is  that  they  are  uncertain  whether  a  vote  when 
60  members  are  not  present,  as  pointed  out  by  you,  would  be  a  valid 
vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  No.  It  is  not  a  valid  vote.  That  is  the 
reason  why  a  suggestion  has  been  made  for  another  vote.  The  vote 
cast  before  lunch  time  is  invalid. 

Mr.  ROSS  (Great  Britain).  Does  that  not  also  refer  to  the  first 
recommendation  ? 


•148 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  PRESIDENT.  Yes;  it  does. 

Now  we  have  to  vote  on  Mr.  Gemmill’s  proposition,  which  is  to 
validate  the  vote  taken  before  lunch  time  and  thereby  invalidate 
the  second  recommendation.  All  those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Gemmill’s 
proposition  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

All  those  against  Mr.  Gemmill’s  proposition  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

I  have  to  declare  that  35  have  voted  for  Mr.  Gemmill’s  motion  and 
33  against.  Therefore,  the  vote  taken  before  lunch  time  stands. 

Mayor  Baron  des  PLANCHES  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian):  I 
would  like  a  little  light  thrown  on  the  proceedings  that  have 
just  taken  place.  I  confess  that  I  have  not  understood  the  result 
of  the  vote  that  has  just  been  taken,  and  I  would  ask  the  Chair  for 
an  explanation.  Was  resolution  No.  2  approved  or  not? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Resolution  No.  2  was  voted  on  before  lunch¬ 
eon  and  failed  to  poll  a  valid  majority  of  votes,  therefore  it  fails. 
The  only  suggestion  made  since  luncheon  was  that,  inasmuch  as  a 
number  of  the  delegates  were  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken,  we 
might  take  another  vote.  We  have  now  decided  not  to  take  that 
other  vote,  so  that  No.  2  as  well  as  No.  1  has  fallen — -neither  No.  1 
nor  No.  2  has  been  carried. 

May  we  now  take  a  vote  on  No.  3?  The  conference  recom¬ 
mends — 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  From  the  explanation  given  by  the 
interpreter,  I  did  not  understand  that  Mr.  Barnes  had  said  that  the 
vote  which  we  took  killed  the  two  recommendations.  Further¬ 
more,  since  I  have  the  floor.  I  must  say  that  I  just  noticed  that  there 
were  a  great  many  delegates  this,  morning  who  did  not  take  part  in 
the  voting,  and  I  notice  now  that  the  same  persons  who  refrained 
this  morning  took  part  in  the  vote  just  now  to  kill  the  recommen¬ 
dation.  Well,  I  deplore  the  attitude  of  these  delegates. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Nolens. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  If  I  rightly  understand  the  situ¬ 
ation  as  it  exists,  it  is  that  the  vote  on  the  first  recommendation 
stands  valid,  and  this  first  article  of  the  draft  recommendation  is 
accepted.  I  do  not  think  that  is  the  case.  But,  in  that  event,  the 
situation  should  be  cleared  up.  Probably  several  others  as  well  as 
myself  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  vote  was  validated  after  voting 
on  Mr.  Gemmill’s  motion.  That  was  the  question.  There  was  a 
vote  and  there  was  no  quorum,  as  you  call  it.  There  was,  to  be  sure, 
a  quorum  present,  but  not  enough  of  those  voted.  After  this  pro¬ 
posal  which  was  accepted  they  said:  All  the  same,  there  was  a 
quorum  and  therefore  the  vote  was  valid.  Consequently,  that 
holds  good  also  of  the  first  article.  If  the  vote  was  valid  for  No.  1, 
and  it  is  consequently  rejected,  then  the  former,  to  which  the  same 
method  applies,  is  accepted.  Otherwise  I  do  not  understand  the 
thing  at  all. 

Further,  I  should  like  to  say  that  for  my  part  I  always  vote. 
When  I  do  not  vote  for  a  motion,  I  vote  against  it.  But  I  under¬ 
stand  very  well  that  there  are  many  members  who  hesitate  at  a 
certain  moment  and  do  not  know  how  to  give  their  vote;  and  that 
comes  largely  from  this — I  am  not  saying  this  to  reproach  the  com¬ 
mittee,  which  has  done  its  best — but  that  comes  largely  from  this: 
We  have  before  us  a  condition  which,  in  its  full  extent,  is  incompre 
hensible  to  several  persons.  I  take  the  liberty  of  saying  that,  and 
I  might  repeat  it  with  regard  to  the  other  propositions  which  will 
xollow.  But  I  must  say  that  if  we  require  a  quorum  of  the  members 
voting,  then  we  shall  probably  have  the  same  question  to  decide 
again  frequently  this  afternoon,  and  perhaps  to-morrow,  and  day 
after  to-morrow.  For  that  reason  I  resolved  to  give  my  vote  in 
favor  of  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Gemmill;  I  gave  it  solely  for  the 
reason  that  otherwise  we  shall  never  get  through  with  it.  But  the 
main  question  is  this:  We  have  a  mass  of  resolutions,  recommenda¬ 
tions,  and  conventions  before  us.  I  must  say  that  I  understand 
these  matters  somewhat,  having  as  professor  given  a  year’s  course 
at  the  University  of  Amsterdam  on  questions  of  unemployment, 


and  yet  with  the  rules  that  we  find  here,  it  is  difficult  for  me  to 
decide  how  to  vote.  But  for  my  part  my  way  is,  when  I  can  not 
vote  for  a  motion,  to  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Gemmill. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  On  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent.  I  do  not  wish  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  conference.  I  under¬ 
stood  that  the  motion  was  the  one  which  I  moved,  namely,  that  this 
morning’s  vote  on  recommendation  No.  2  should  stand  as  it  was 
taken  and  decided  then,  and  that  we  should  proceed  to  No.  3.  Are 
we,  therefore,  in  order  in  continuing  the  discussion  on  the  same 
point? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  we  are  not;  and  I  hope  we  shall 
now  proceed  to  vote  on  No.  3. 

Mr.  Gemmill  pointed  out  that  the  vote  just  taken  validated  the 
vote  taken  before  lunch,  and  therefore  we  must  proceed;  that  is  all. 

Dr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  want  to  ask  this  question:  Ac¬ 
cording  to  what  we  understand,  recommendation  No.  2  has  been 
killed.  Is  that  so? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  so. 

Dr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  Now,  I  want  to  ask  the  Chair  if  the 
Chair  will  allow  me  to  introduce  another  resolution,  an  amendment 
to  resolution  No.  2? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir.  You  can  not  amend  a  resolution 
which  is  not  before  the  house.  You  have  just  said  that  the  reso¬ 
lution  is  killed.  Therefore  you  can  not  amend  the  corpse. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman,  inasmuch  as  there 
seems  to  be  considerable  misunderstanding  as  to  the  effect  of  the 
vote  taken,  may  I  ask  the  Chair  if  he  would  accept  a  motion  to 
reconsider  the  action  taken  on  recommendations  Nos.  1  and  2? 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  I  had  to  consider  a-nd  settle  that  mat¬ 
ter,  I  should  decide  against  it,  because  you  have  already  voted 
twice.  I  must  assume  you  knew  what  you  were  voting  upon,  and 
you  have  voted  twice  to  kill  resolution  No.  2;  hence  I  must  regard 
resolution  No.  2  as  dead. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  we 
should  proceed  along  broad  lines  and  not  be  in  any  way  technical. 
I  therefore  move  that  this  conference  do  now  reconsider  the  action 
taken  on  recommendations  Nos.  1  and  2.  Let  us  get  the  matter 
straightened  out  clearly. 

Dr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Sokal  is  recognized. 

Mr.  SOKAL  (Poland).  I,  too,  second  the  motion  of  Senator 
Robertson,  and  I  desire  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  assembly  to 
the  fact  that  if  we  vote  again,  as  we  voted  on  the  motion  of  the  dele¬ 
gate  from  South  Africa,  we  shall  kill  recommendation  No.  2  without 
knowing  it.  We  did  not  know  that  the  result  of  the  voting  before 
lunch  was  negative.  Many  among  us  were  convinced  that  this  result 
was  positive.  Now,  if  the  vote  was  not  valid,  we  ought  to  vote  on 
recommendation  No.  2  and  not  on  the  motion  of  the  delegate 
from  South  Africa.  We  were  not  sufficiently  enlightened,  as  has 
been  emphasized  by  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  already.  For  these 
reasons  I  heartily  support  Senator  Robertson’s  motion  to  reconsider 
recommendation  No.  1  and  recommendation  No.  2. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  May  I  ask  if  the  resolution 
moved  by  Mr.  Robertson  is  in  order?  As  I  read  article  13,  no 
resolution  can  be  moved  in  any  session  of  the  conference  unless  a 
copy  has  been  handed  in  to  the  secretary  at  least  two  days  pre¬ 
vious. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  to  decide  that  Senator  Robertson 
is  quite  in  order.  If  Mr.  Gemmill  will  turn  to  13-c,  in  the 
case  of  motions  as  to  procedure  no  previous  notice  need  be  given 
nor  need  a  copy  be  handed  into  the  clerk  of  the  conference. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  to 
challenge  the  suggestion  that  this  is  a  matter  of  procedure.  There 
is  nothing  to  proceed  with.  When  a  vote  has  been  dealt  with - 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  a  matter  for  the  Chair,  I  think, 
Mr.  Crawford. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


149 


Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  am  submitting  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  So  long  as  I  am  here  I  am  going  to  decide 
questions  according  to  my  judgment.  If  you  want  somebody  else 
to  come  here,  of  course  you  are  at  liberty  to  do  so. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Have  I  not  the  right  to  chal¬ 
lenge  the  Chair? 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have. 

The  proposition  of  Senator  Robertson  is  to  reconsider  Nos.  1  and 
2,  so  that  you  can  vote  on  them  well  knowing  what  you  are  voting 
about. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  A  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man.  I  want  to  draw  your  attention  to  article  13,  the  last  para¬ 
graph,  which  defines  motions  as  to  procedure.  That  shows  the 
intention  of  motions  as  to  procedure,  a  motion  to  refer  back,  a 
motion  to  postpone  consideration  of  the  question,  a  general  motion 
of  adjournment,  a  motion  to  adjourn  the  debate  on  a  particular 
question,  a  motion  that  the  conference  proceed  with  the  next  item 
on  the  day’s  program  for  the  sitting.  I  submit  that  does  not  come 
under  any  of  those  categories. 

The  PRESIDENT.  But,  Mr.  Crawford,  if  you  will  read  the 
first  line,  you  will  see  that  matters  of  procedure  include  all  those 
things  that  you  have  just  stated.  If  there  is  anything  else  not 
included  there  and  which  may  seem  to  the  Chairman,  for  the  time 
being,  to  be  a  matter  which  might  be  discussed  again,  that,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  a  matter  for  the  Chairman  to  decide. 

May  we  have  a  vote  for  and  against  Mr.  Robertson’s  motion? 
Voting  for  Mr.  Robertson  will,  of  course,  apply  to  the  two  recom¬ 
mendations.  All  in  favor,  please  signify.  [Votes  counted.] 

Down,  please.  Those  against.  [Votes  counted.] 

Forty-nine  have  voted  in  favor  of  Mr.  Robertson’s  motion  and  28 
against;  I  therefore  declare  that  motion  carried  and  will  proceed  to 
take  a  vote  on  all  the  draft  recommendations,  beginning  at  No.  1. 

Dr.  GARCIA  (Ecuador).  Mr.  Chairman,  the  vote  therefore  shows 
that  we  do  not  know  what  we  are  doing. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  that  is  a  matter  for  yourselves,  my 
friend.  I  will  take  a  vote  now  on  No.  1,  please.  Shall  I  read  it,  or 
have  you  all  read  it? 

A  Delegate.  We  have  read  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  read  it? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  it  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Crawford? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Yes.  My  point  of  order  is 
that  Senator  Robertson’s  motion  was  that  these  questions  should 
be  reconsidered,  not  voted  upon. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  a  matter  for  Mr.  Robertson. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  My  point  is  this,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man:  In  the  morning  the  chairman  in  putting  every  question  asked 
first  if  there  was  any  discussion  before  he  put  the  questions  to  the 
vote.  Our  present  chairman  is  putting  questions  to  the  vote  with¬ 
out  asking  for  discussion. 

Mr.-LAZARD  (France).  Discussion  has  taken  place. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Discussion  has  taken  place  on 
one  or  two,  but  the  chairman  is  proceeding  to  put  every  question  to 
the  vote  without  first  inviting  discussion.  I  say  that  the  motion  of 
Senator  Robertson  was  to  reconsider  the  question,  which  would 
leave  the  question  again  open  to  discussion.  [Cries of  “  No!  ”  “  no!  ”] 
Well,  that  is  surely  the  meaning  of  “reconsider.”  [Cries  of  “No!  ” 
“nol”]  I  want  the  chairman’s  ruling  on  the  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  understand  that  Nos.  1  and  2  were 
discussed  before  lunch.  [Cries  of  “Yes!”]  We  had  not  gone  be¬ 
yond  Nos.  1  and  2,  and  therefore  Mr.  Crawford’s  point  had  not  arisen. 
I  was  about  to  read  No.  3,  and  possibly  I  might  have  asked  for  dis¬ 
cussion  on  No.  3.  Mr.  Crawford  will  have  a  chance  when  No.  3  is 
read  to  discuss  No.  3  if  he  wants  to. 

I  am  told  by  a  gentleman  on  the  left  that  it  is  very  difficult  for 
him  to  hear  what  is  going  on,  because  of  conversations  around  the 
center  of  the  floor.  Might  I  appeal  to  the  delegates  to  be  quiet  dur¬ 
ing  the  proceedings,  so  that  those  at  the  extremities,  at  both  ends, 
may  hear  what  is  going  on  ? 


Now,  a  vote  on  No.  1,  please.  All  those  in  favor  of  No.  1  draft 
recommendation,  on  page  295  [Provisional  Record],  will  raise  their 
hands.  [Votes  counted.]  Those  against.  [Votes  counted.] 

Sixty-one  have  voted  in  favor  and  13  against,  and  therefore  I 
declare  No.  1  carried. 

Now,  a  vote  on  No.  2.  All  those  in  favor  of  No.  2  please  signify  by 
holding  up  your  hands.  [Hands  raised.]  Those  against  raise  their 
right  hands.  [Hands  raised.] 

Fifty -four  have  voted  in  favor  and  16  against.  Therefore  I  have 
now  to  declare  No.  2  carried. 

Now,  we  will  take  up  No.  3. 

The  conference  recommends  as  a  method  of  dealing  with  unemployment,  that  each 
State  member  of  the  permanent  organization  shall  take  steps  to  establish  an  effective 
system  of  unemployment  insurance,  either  through  a  system  worked  by  the  State 
or  through  a  system  of  subventions  or  grants  by  the  State  to  associations,  the  rules  of 
which  provide  for  the  payment  of  benefits  to  unemployed  workers  who  are  members 
of  such  associations. 

No.  3  is  now  before  the  meeting.  It  is  already  before  you  in 
French  and  English  and  there  is  no  need  for  a  translation. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  We  call  for  the  rejection  of  this  pro¬ 
vision.  It  is  premature,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  enforce,  and  the 
directions  accompanying  it  are  so  formidable  that  the  Governments 
to  which  it  is  sent  will  either  say  that  they  have  already  fulfilled 
them  beforehand,  or  that  it  is  an  extremely  delicate  matter  and  it  is 
almost  impossible  for  them  to  satisfy  the  requirements. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  I  beg  the  assembly  not  to  support 
the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Carlier,  and  I  shall  explain  why:  Even 
in  our  own  country,  in  Belgium,  at  this  moment,  a  draft  law  is  being 
prepared  to  be  presented  to  the  chamber  in  order  to  provide  unem¬ 
ployment  benefits  for  the  workers  in  our  country.  I  deem  it 
inconceivable  that  a  Belgian  delegate  can  at  the  present  time  pro¬ 
pose  not  to  recommend  the  adoption  of  such  a  plan  to  our  country. 
For  this  reason  I  urge  the  conference  to  vote  unanimously  for  the 
recommendation  before  us. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian). 

I  shall  vote  in  favor  of  this  proposal  contained  in  the  resolution 
now  before  the  conference,  and  I  take  this  opportunity  to  inform  the 
conference  that  in  Italy  an  institution  already  exists  which  complies 
■with  the  requirements  of  that  resolution. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  just  want  to  make  a  point  on 
No.  3  that  I  wanted  to  make  on  Nos.  1  and  2,  when  they  came  up, 
on  the  question  of  reconsideration.  I  am  one  of  those  delegates  that 
did  not  vote  either  way  on  Nos.  1  or  2  and  do  not  propose  to  vote 
either  way  on  No.  3.  But  I  want  it  to  be  understood  that  my  reason 
for  not  voting  is  that  I  am  not  necessarily  against  the  proposals  if  they 
were  initiated  by  the  International  Labor  Office  for  consideration  at  a 
future  conference.  But  I  may  be  against  the  proposal  going  to  the 
International  Labor  Office  with  the  backing  of  a  majority  of  this  con¬ 
ference,  and  under  these  circumstances  I  do  not  think  any  delegate — 
and  Mr.  Mertens  was  one  who  took  exception — should  say  that  those 
who  do  not  vote  because  with  their  presence  a  majority  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  are  taking  part  in  the  thing,  that  their  vote  should  have  no 
value  and  no  influence. 

The  standing  orders  are  constructed,  as  I  take  it,  to  give  a  vote  of 
that  character  some  value,  namely,  the  vote  of  a  delegate  which  is 
not  cast  because  he  is  not  against  the  proposal  if  it  comes  from  the 
International  Labor  Office  but  is  against  it  going  to  the  International 
Labor  Office  with  the  weight  of  this  conference  behind  it. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Question. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Permit  me  to  say  a  word.  I  ask  the 
assembly  to  pronounce  in  favor  of  the  recommendation  before  us, 
for  if  the  present  conference  were  to  declare  against  it,  it  would 
really  be  pronouncing  against  the  spirit  of  the  whole  report  and 
against  the  very  motives  which  prompted  the  organization  of  the 
commission  on  unemployment.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  conference 
should  pronounce  against  the  recommendation,  it  would  be  going 
contrary  to  the  practice  established  in  most  countries  during  the 
war.  We  must  admit  that  if  the  question  seemed  inopportune  in 
1914,  it  is  to-day,  after  five  years  of  war,  perfectly  ripe.  In  almost 


150 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


all  countries,  in  one  way  or  another,  systems  of  insurance  against 
unemployment  have  been  established. 

Mr.  POSADA  (Spain — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  am  for  compulsory 
insurance  against  unemployment.  I  think  that  is  the  minimum 
which  the  present  conference  can  obtain. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  I  am  for  this  recommendation,  and 
it  seems  to  be  everybody’s  duty  to  be  for  it  also.  In  our  country  we 
have  a  very  modern  system  of  insurance  against  unemployment,  and 
for  that  reason  I  am  in  favor  of  the  recommendation.  I  hope  that 
the  conference  will  vote  unanimously  in  favor  of  this  recommenda¬ 
tion,  and  I  propose  our  own  system. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  will  vote  now  on  No.  3.  All  those 
in  favor  of  No.  3  resolution  please  signify  by  holding  up  one  hand. 
[Votes  counted.]  Those  against,  please.  [Votes  counted.] 

Sixty-six  have  voted  in  favor  and  three  against;  therefore  No.  3 
is  carried.  Now  we  will  take  No.  4,  as  to  the  recommendation  that 
each  State  member  of  the  permanent  organization  adopt  measures 
with  a  view  of  coordinating  the  execution  of  all  public  works. 

May  we  take  a  vote  on  that?  Any  discussion?  If  not,  I  will  take 
a  vote.  All  those  in  favor  of  No.  4,  please  signify.  Those  against, 
please. 

Sixty-two  voted  in  favor;  therefore  that  is  also  adopted. 

I  have  to  declare  that  all  the  draft  recommendations  then  become 
the  finding  of  the  conference  at  the  present  stage. 

Now  we  come  to  the  draft  resolutions.  May  I  take  No.  1? 

If  there  is  no  discussion  we  will  proceed.  All  those  in  favor  of  No. 
1  draft  resolution  please  signify  by  raising  their  hands.  [Votes 
counted.]  All  those  against  No.  1  draft  resolution?  [Votes  counted.  ]• 

Sixty- two  in  favor  and  none  against.  Therefore  I  declare  No.  1 
carried. 

Now,  No.  2  resolution,  for  placing  upon  the  agenda  for  the  next 
session  of  the  conference  the  question  of  transforming  recommenda¬ 
tion  No.  3  into  a  convention  on  unemployment.  All  those  in  favor 
of  draft  resolution  No.  2  will  please  signify  by  raising  their  hands. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  May  I  suggest 
that  the  vote  on  this  resolution  be  postponed?  A  large  number  of 
suggestions  for  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference  have  been  made 
by  the  different  commissions,  and  it  would  seem  more  convenient 
that  we  should  consider  all  those  suggestions  together,  and  not  take 
a  vote  on  each  individually  in  connection  with  the  different  reports. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Lazard. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  I  should  have  no  objection  to  the  pro¬ 
posal  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  if  it  were  a  question  of  a  final  vote, 
but  now  we  are  undertaking  only  a  preliminary  vote.  In  this  pre¬ 
liminary  vote  we  have  the  possibility  of  considering  the  entire  num¬ 
ber  of  questions  submitted  and  of  manifesting  the  desires  of  the 
assembly.  This  vote  is  recorded,  and  at  the  second  reading,  or 
eventually,  in  connection  with  all  the  questions  to  be  submitted  to 
the  vote  of  the  assembly  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  agenda  of  the 
next  session,  a  final  vote  is  taken.  I  should  have  no  objection  to 
that,  but  I  request  that  the  preliminary  vote  be  taken  in  such  a  way 
that  the  assembly  may  pronounce  on  this  proposition  (since  it  is 
complementary  to  the  question  of  insurance  against  unemployment) 
in  such  a  way  that  the  question  must  be  submitted  to  the  next 
conference  in  order  to  result  in  a  draft  convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  anything  further?  We  will  now 
take  a  vote  on  it,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  Mr.  President,  may  I  suggest  that 
under  the  treaty  a  record  vote  is  required  in  this  case,  and  a  two- 
thirds  majority  is  necessary? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Kershaw  suggests  a  record  vote .  nave 
you  20  supporters,  Mr.  Kershaw? 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  My  point  was,  Mr.  President,  that  a 
proposal  to  place  an  item  on  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference  will 
require  a  two-thirds  majority,  and  therefore  the  vote  must  be  a 
record  vote. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Can  you  give  us  the  number? 


Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  It  is  article  422  of  the  peace  treaty,  I 
think. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  find  nothing  of  the  kind  here,  Mr. 
Kershaw. 

It  is  rather  obscure,  gentlemen,  as  to  whether  Mr.  Kershaw  has  a 
right  to  demand  a  record  vote  or  not,  and  I  think  the  reference  to 
which  he  has  directed  our  attention  is  not  intended  to  apply  to  a 
conference,  but  is  intended  to  apply  to  an  objection  that  might  be 
raised  by  the  Governments  to  an  item  placed  on  the  agenda  for  a 
conference,  not  by  a  conference,  but  by  the  governing  body.  That 
is  as  I  find  it.  But  still  at  the  same  time,  right  or  not  right,  if  Mr. 
Kershaw  desires  a  record  vote  to  be  taken  now  and  is  supported  by 
20  members,  I  do  not  see  why  it  should  not  be  done. 

Well,  I  find  that  there  is  a  reference  in  the  treaty  as  follows 
[article  402]: 

If  the  conference  decides  (otherwise  than  under  the  preceding  paragraph),  by  two- 
thirds  of  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present,  that  any  subject  shall  be  considered 
by  the  conference,  that  subject  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda  for  the  following 
meeting. 

I  really  do  not  know  whether  “the  conference”  means  this  or  not. 

This  is  all  out  of  order;  it  has  no  application  to  the  present  position, 
because  the  reference  to  which  Mr.  Kershaw  has  now  directed  our 
attention  is  something  with  relation  to  something  that  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  at  this  conference.  You  are  now  considering  whether  or  not 
you  will  send  something  forward  to  the  next  conference.  Therefore 
I  get  back  to  my  previous  ruling.  As  I  understand  it,  a  record  vote 
can  be  had  at  any  time  if  20  members  support  a  member  in  demand¬ 
ing  that  record  vote.  If  Mr.  Kershaw  demands  that,  he  can  have  it. 

Mr.  KERSHAW’  (India).  No.  I  do  not  wish  a  record  vote. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).-  Mr.  President, 
may  I  suggest  to  Mr.  Lazard  that  he  is  mistaken  in  thinking  that  there 
will  be  another  vote  on  this  question. 

I  submit  that  this  resolution  comes  up  now  finally  for  decision. 
If  a  vote  is  taken  now  it  will  be  a  final  vote  on  the  question  whether 
this  subject  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda  for  next  year’s 
conference. 

This  resolution  is  not  on  the  same  footing  as  a  draft  convention  or 
a  draft  recommendation,  which  have  to  come  up  for  a  final  two- 
thirds  vote.  This  resolution  is  on  a  different  footing  and  will  be 
decided  by  a  simple  majority.  I  submit  that  the  vote,  if  now  taken, 
will  be  a  final  vote  and  that  it  will  prejudice,  or  may  prejudice,  the 
position  as  regards  other  suggestions  and  recommendations  for  the 
agenda  of  next  year’s  conference  which  have  been  submitted  by 
other  commissions.  There  is  a  proposal,  or  may  be  a  proposal,  to 
refer  all  these  suggestions  for  the  agenda  of  next  year’s  conference  to 
the  governing  body,  and  I  therefore  ask  Mr.  Lazard  to  consent  to  the 
postponement  on  the  vote  of  this  resolution  until  the  other  sugges¬ 
tions  can  be  considered  at  the  same  time.  It  will  in  no  wise  preju¬ 
dice  the  position  as  regards  this  resolution  or  as  regards  his  report, 
and  if  it  is  in  order  I  will  propose  a  motion  for  the  postponement  of 
this  resolution  until  the  other  suggestions  to  the  agenda  of  next  year’s 
conference  can  be  considered  completed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  proposed  now  that  this  motion  be  post¬ 
poned  for  consideration  until  the  suggestions  sent  in  in  accordance 
with  the  convention  are  considered  by  the  governing  body.  I  take 
it  that  is  what  you  mean. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  No,  sir— until 
the  suggestions  which  have  been  made  by  other  committees  can  be 
considered  together  with  it  by  this  conference  and  decision  taken. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Lazard. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  I  did  not  request  a  final  vote;  I  thought 
that  we  should  have  two  votes.  If  the  assembly  thinks  that  it  is  not 
feasible  to  have  two  votes,  that  we  must  proceed  at  once  to  a  final 
vote,  I  have  no  objection.  I  accept  the  arguments  offered  by 
Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  in  the  sense  that  I  agree  with  him  in  think¬ 
ing  that  it  is  equitable  to  submit  all  the  questions  which  shall  l>e 
presented  to  the  vote  of  the  assembly  from  the  point  of  view  of  their 
inclusion  in  the  agenda  of  the  next  session. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


151 


If  it  is  understood  that  all  these  questions  shall  be  presented  and 
that  in  this  presentation  the  conference  will  have  an  opportunity 
to  decide  either  to  refer  to  the  governing  body  for  a  final  decision 
or,  on  the  other  hand,  to  retain  such  items  as  may  seem  particularly 
important  and  to  say  that  they  shall  be  included  in  the  program 
of  the  next  conference  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  now,  if  we  agree  on 
that  point,  I  agree  absolutely  in  not  voting  at  the  same  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  take  it  that  Sir  Malcolm’s  proposition  is 
that  we  defer  consideration  of  this  until  the  propositions  come  up  in 
draft  form,  and  then  they  will  be  considered  together  with  all  the 
other  recommendations.  Is  that  so? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Yes;  that  those 
propositions  come  up  together,  as  they  will  before  the  close  of  the 
conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  you  understand  the  position? 

Now,  I  will  take  a  vote  on  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne’s  proposal, 
which  is,  that  the  consideration  of  this  particular  resolution,  No.  2, 
be  deferred  until  other  matters  connected  with  the  unemployment 
problem  come  up  in  draft  form. 

Now,  all  those  in  favor  of  postponement  will  please  signify  by 
raising  their  hands. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  I  did  not  understand  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne’s  motion  to  be  as  stated  by  the  chair.  I  understood  his 
motion  to  be  that  consideration  be  postponed  until  we  have  before 
the  conference  the  other  proposals  for  next  year’s  agenda,  and  that 
we  should  consider  those  at  the  same  time  as  we  consider  other  pro¬ 
posals  for  next  year’s  agenda?  Am  I  right?  I  would  like  to  ask 
Sir  Malcolm  if  that  is  what  he  said. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Yes;  thatis  right. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  it  explained. 
I  think  it  would  be  better  if  amendments  were  handed  up  in 
writing.  There  is  nothing  of  the  sort  now  up  here,  and  we  have 
to  interpret  the  motion  as  best  we  can.  All  those  in  favor  of  post¬ 
ponement  will  please  signify  by  raising  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

All  those  against  postponement  will  please  signify  by  raising  their 

hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Forty-four  have  voted  in  favor  and  nine  against,  so  that  that  dis¬ 
poses  of  it  for  the  time  being.  It  will  come  up  again  later  on. 

May  I  now  take  up  No.  3? 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  before  you  proceed  I 
would  like  to  ask  if  a  vote  of  44  to  9  constitutes  a  quorum  of  the 
conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Jt  will  for  this  matter.  You  see  it  will 
come  up  again  later. 

Is  there  any  discussion  on  No.  3?  If  not,  I  will  take  a  vote. 

Mr.  ROBERTSON  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  there  was  an  amend¬ 
ment  moved  to  No.  3  yesterday  by  Mr.  Gemmill  of  South  Africa. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  That  is  No.  4. 

The  PRESIDENT.  All  in  favor  of  No.  3  will  please  signify 
by  raising  their  hands. 

[Hands  raised.] 

All  those  against  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

I  must  declare  the  vote  invalid.  Fifty-six  have  voted  in  favor 
and  none  against.  Therefore,  there  having  been  less  than  a  majority 
of  the  delegates  to  this  conference  voting,  it  falls  for  the  moment. 

I  am  told  there  is  some  doubt  existing  in  the  minds  of  the  tellers 
as  to  their  figures.  May  we  have  a  recount,  so  that  there  shall  be 
no  doubt  as  to  the  finding  of  the  conference.  I  will  ask  for  a  vote 
once  more  on  No.  3.  Those  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  No.  3  will 
raise  a  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Are  there  any  against? 

[None.] 

There  are  now  61  votes  cast  for  the  resolution.  Therefore,  I  have 
to  declare  it  valid. 


On  No.  4  there  is  an  amendment,  and  therefore  I  will  read  No.  4 
and  the  amendment,  so  that  the  conference  will  be  in  a  position  to 
know  what  they  are  discussing.  The  resolution  is  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  shall  appoint 
an  international  commission  which,  while  giving  due  regard  to  the  sovereign  right 
of  each  state,  shall  consider  and  report  what  measures  can  be  adopted  to  regulate  the 
migration  of  workers  out  of  their  own  states  and  to  protect  the  interests  of  wage 
earners  residing  in  a  state  other  than  their  own,  such  commission  to  present  its 
report  at  the  meeting  of  the  International  Conference  in  1920. 

And  the  resolution  which  stands  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Gemmill,  of 
the  South  African  delegation,  is  as  follows: 

The  representation  of  states  in  the  European  countries  on  the  commission  shall  be 
limited  to  one-half  of  the  total  membership  of  the  commission. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  yesterday  I 
moved  this  amendment  and  gave  my  reasons  for  it,  and  I  will  not 
take  up  the  time  of  the  conference  in  repeating  what  I  said  then. 
It  is  actually  moved  and  seconded. 

Mr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  second  the 
motion  presented  by  the  delegate  from  South  Africa.  South 
America  is  represented  by  only  a  small  number  of  persons  on  the 
future  governing  board  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  and  here 
is  an  occasion  to  rectify  in  a  way  this  disproportion  by  giving  an 
equal  number  on  this  commission,  which  is,  in  a  way,  going  to 
be  part  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 

Another  thing  is  not  to  be  lost  sight  of.  The  creation  of  this  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office  and  its  governing  body  is  the  first  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  South  American  interests  must 
be  safeguarded  there.  South  American  countries  have  a  consider¬ 
able  industrial  importance.  The  population  of  those  countries  is 
80,000,000,  and  the  commerce  is  considerable;  the  exports  alone 
amounted  to  $2,000,000,000  and  these  figures  are  the  figures  given 
before  the  war. 

Now,  I  very  strongly  recommend,  therefore,  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Gemmill.  I  hope  the  conference  decides  that  the  countries  that 
receive  an  immigrant  population  shall  be  represented  by  one-half 
of  the  delegates  on  that  special  commission. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Crawford. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  this  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Conference  was  initiated  as  a  result  of  a  chapter  in  the 
peace  treaty  which  was  characterized  by  sentiments  of  the  loftiest 
kind,  breathing  the  spirit  of  good  will  and  brotherhood.  Now,  it  is 
going  to  be  a  very  difficult  thing  indeed  to  maintain  in  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference  that  excellent  spirit  that  characterized  its 
birth,  and  already  it  appears  to  me  that  there  is  a  tendency  for 
economic  interests  of  a  contending  character  to  come  into  relief. 
It  was  particularly  evident  to  my  mind  in  the  minority  report  that 
was  presented  earlier  in  the  day  by  Mr.  Baldesi.  It  was  indicated 
there  that  there  was  an  opposing  economic  interest  between  the  older 
world  and  the  newer  world — the  old  world  with  its  teeming  popula¬ 
tion  which  it  desires  to  retain  because  of  its  economic  interest,  the 
new  world  with  its  abundance  of  raw  material  which  it  desired  to 
use  for  the  development  of  its  population  and  which  desired  the 
labor  from  the  older  countries  to  enable  its  industries  to  develop. 
These  contending  economic  interests  characterized  themselves  in 
that  particular  report. 

When  I  got  up  and  stated  that  I  abstained  from  voting  and  desired 
to  give  my  reasons,  I  intended  to  say  that  while  I  agreed  entirely 
with  the  desire  of  Mr.  Baldesi  that  this  matter  should  be  inquired 
into,  I  was  not  prepared  to  intrust  such  an  inquiry  to  any  commis¬ 
sion  or  governing  body  the  personnel  of  which  consisted  almost 
entirely  of  representatives  of  European  countries.  And  I  make 
bold  to  say  that  if  Mr.  Baldesi  in  his  minority  report,  had  given 
protection  to  the  younger  countries  by  suggesting  that  such  an 
inquiry  should  be  conducted  by  a  commission  equally  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  older  and  newer  countries,  with  their  peculiar 
economic  interests  in  view,  I,  who  did  not  vote  at  all,  would  have 
voted  for  it,  and  many  of  the  other  representatives  of  the  newer 
countries  would  have  voted  for  it,  and  it  would  have  been  carried. 


152 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Now,  if  this  conference  is  going  to  succeed  it  is  essential  that  far 
more  consideration  be  given  to  the  newer  countries.  They  should 
not  be  despised  because  their  populations  are  small.  Their  poten¬ 
tialities  are  great,  and  you  can  not  very  well  ignore  those  potentiali¬ 
ties.  When  the  representatives  of  the  newer  countries  go  back  to 
their  respective  countries  and  report  what  has  transpired,  and  are 
asked  what  is  the  international  situation,  what  interest  they  have 
in  it,  what  control  they  have  over  it,  and  they  give  the  facts  and 
figures  concerning  it,  the  feeling  will  be  given  birth  to,  and  will 
grow  in  the  newer  countries,  that  this  movement,  which  was  lofty 
at  the  outset,  is  becoming  one  which  is  likely  to  be  taken  advantage 
of  by  the  old  countries  to  perpetuate  their  dominance  of  the  indus¬ 
trial  affairs  of  the  universe.  Now,  that  is  an  impression  that  it  is 
very  desirable  to  dispel.  1  for  one  am  fully  in  accord  with  all  that 
has  been  done,  particularly  by  the  commission  which  dealt  with  un¬ 
employment,  but  as  the  representative  of  another  country,  I  voted 
for  very  few  of  the  measures,  because  I  did  not  want  to  intrust  the 
economic  interests  of  my  country  to  a  commission  on  which  their 
interests  are  not  in  any  way  represented,  and,  because  of  that,  in 
which  their  interests  may  not  be  adequately  protected. 

If  this  conference  is  going  to  perpetuate  itself  it  is  necessary 
for  more  consideration  to  be  given  to  the  newer  countries  than  has 
been  given  heretofore.  And  certainly  when  it  comes  to  a  considera¬ 
tion  of  questions  where  there  are  only  two  interests,  and  those  are 
diametrically  opposed,  then  the  representation  on  that  commission 
should  be  equal,  just  in  the  same  way  in  labor  matters  we  have 
insisted  in  recent  times  that  the  interests  of  employers  and  em¬ 
ployees  be  equally  represented.  So  should  the  economic  interests 
of  the  old  and  the  newer  countries  be  equally  represented  on  com¬ 
missions  of  this  character.  We  have  got  to  practice  after  all  what 
we  preach,  and  you  may  get  all  the  resolutions  through  this  con¬ 
ference  that  you  like  with  the  application,  if  I  may  use  the  term, 
of  a  steam  roller,  and  that  would  not  make  those  resolutions  appli¬ 
cable  as  it  is  desirable  they  should  be  applicable  to  the  whole 
universe. 

It  is  necessary  that  you  should  create  an  impression  in  the  newer 
countries  that  you  are  out  not  for  your  own  selfish  interests — I  am 
speaking  to  the  representatives  of  the  European  countries  and  I  am 
appealing  to  them — not  to  give  the  impression  that  you  are  out  for 
your  own  selfish  interests  but  that  you  are  out  to  give  the  outside 
and  newer  countries  a  square  deal;  that  you  are  not  out  to  take  ad¬ 
vantage  of  them,  but  that  you  are  out  to  work  with  them  in  a  spirit 
of  good  will  and  accord,  and  I  therefore  trust,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
this  amendment  proposed  by  the  employers’  representative  from 
South  Africa  will  get  the  support  not  only  of  the  representatives  of 
the  newer  countries  but  particularly  of  the  representatives  of  the 
European  countries. 

I  think  it  is  an  excellent  opportunity  for  them  to  indicate — and  I 
wish  the  spirit  of  it  would  extend  to  other  decisions  of  the  confer¬ 
ence — I  say,  it  is  an  excellent  opportunity  for  them  to  indicate  that 
where  the  economic  interests  of  other  than  European  countries  con¬ 
flict  with  European  countries,  the  European  countries  are  prepared 
to  take  nothing  more  than  an  equal  share  and  to  guarantee  to  the 
newer  countries  a  square  deal. 

The  PRESIDENT:  There  are  four  persons  who  have  been 
competing  to  catch  my  eye  to  speak  on  this  simple  resolution.  I 
want  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  conference.  We  have  still  to  take, 
and  we  intend  to  take  to-day,  the  report  of  the  special  committee 
on  Eastern  and  other  countries.  We  have  decided  that  we  must 
finish  this  week,  and  I  want  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  conference  to 
have  some  regard  for  what  is  to  follow,  as  well  as  what  is  now  before 
the  conference.  Now,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  this  is  a  very  simple 
proposition.  We  have  had  three  speeches  in  favor  of  it,  and  I  would 
appeal  to  those  who  are  in  favor  and  who  felt  disposed  to  speak  to 
refrain  from  doing  so  and  to  give  the  floor  to  those  who  are  against 
the  proposition.  It  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that  what  we  are 
running  up  against  is  exhausting  ourselves  in  talking  on  a  great 


many  topics,  and  then  leaving  a  great  many  more  to  be  decided  the 
last  day  without  any  talk  at  all.  That  is  unfair  to  those  propositions 
that  have  to  come  on,  and  I  hope  the  conference  will  proceed  now  on 
that  assumption. 

Mr.  Lazard  is  the  first  one  who  was  up.  Do  you  want  to  talk? 

[Mr.  Lazard  yields  the  floor.] 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Sir,  I  propose  a  closure  on  the  Gemmill 
amendment. 

Mr.  FRAN  CO  (Brazil).  I  call  for  the  floor  on  this  question,  which 
is  very  important  for  the  interests  of  Brazil  and  South  America  in 
general. 

Mr.  FRAIPONT  (Belgium).  I  wish  to  speak  against  the  closure. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Out  of  order,  sir.  There  is  only  one  speech 
allowed  on  the  closure. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  Under  these  circumstances,  I  withdraw 
the  motion  for  closure. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  it  the  wish  of  the  conference  that  Mr. 
Draper  shall  withdraw  his  motion  for  closure,  in  order  that  the  dele¬ 
gate  from  Brazil  may  talk? 

Mr.  FRANCO  (Brazil).  I  have  the  honor  to  invite  the  dele¬ 
gates  representing  Latin  America  to  vote  against  the  provisions 
of  article  4  of  this  proposition.  It  is  decided  that  the  governing 
body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  shall  constitute  an  interna¬ 
tional  commission,  which  shall  respect  the  rights  of  each  State  by 
naking  a  report  upon  the  measures  to  be  adopted  with  a  view  to 
the  regulation  of  the  emigration  of  workers  outside  of  their  native 
country.  Brazil  is  a  young  country;  it  sends  out  no  emigrants,  but 
it  receives  immigrants.  We,  the  young  nations  of  Latin  America, 
are  not  nations  of  emigration,  we  are  nations  of  immigration;  we 
welcome  workers  from  all  parts  of  the  world  and  give  them  the  guar¬ 
antee  of  our  laws  and  our  constitution  for  the  absolute  protection  of 
their  rights  in  order  to  equalize  the  situation  created  for  them  by 
the  national  laws  of  their  respective  countries.  This  commission 
is  going  to  intervene  in  the  territory  of  the  young  nations  of  Latin 
America  and  I  can  not  understand,  Mr.  President,  what  the  meas¬ 
ures  are  that  it  will  impose  on  them. 

In  international  law  it  is  the  diplomatic  agents,  it  is  the  countries 
to  which  workers  go  in  search  of  work,  that  become  their  natural 
protectors.  This  arrangement,  Mr.  President,  is  out  of  harmony 
with  the  legislative  system  of  all  the  countries  of  Latin  America. 
It  is  flagrantly  opposed  to  the  provisions  of  our  constitution.  We 
should  be  doing  a  vain  and  ephemeral  work,  a  work  which  could 
not  be  sanctioned  by  the  executive  authority  of  our  States,  nor  by 
their  legislative  bodies,  which  have  to  give  final  approval  to  the  pro¬ 
visions  which  are  accepted  by  the  Chief  of  the  State.  If  this  com¬ 
mission  is  to  be  made  up  from  the  International  Labor  Office,  which 
is  composed  of  24  representatives,  only  1  of  whom  at  the  present 
moment  represents  the  nations  of  South  America,  we  do  not  know 
what  guarantees  we,  the  young  nations  of  South  America,  shall  have 
for  safeguarding  very  important  rights  of  our  countries.  And  if  we 
can  not  now  accept  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  representatives 
of  South  Africa,  we  nevertheless  agree  with  the  minister  of  Paraguay. 
We  positively  reject  this  proposition,  because  it  is  contrary  to  the 
vital  interests  of  our  countries. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Leon  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  wish  to  trespass  upon  the 
attention  of  the  conference  any  longer,  but  nevertheless  I  desire  to 
say  a  few  words  in  reply  to  the  argument  set  forth  by  Mr.  Crawford. 
Representing  a  country,  or  belonging  to  a  country,  which  has 
acquired  nothing  from  the  war  but  sorrow'  and  ruin,  we  accept  the 
proposition  embodied  in  by  the  amendment  w'hich  has  been  laid 
before  us.  To-morrow  we  shall  be  a  country  of  immigration  and  on 
the  same  footing  as  the  countries  of  America  and  the  countries 
of  immigration  on  other  continents.  We  intend  that  foreign  workers 
who  may  come  among  us  shall  have  the  same  rights  as  native 
workers,  and  shall  have  the  same  obligations  and  the  same  duties. 
On  this  question  we  are  in  complete  agreement  with  the  principle 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


153 


which  has  been  formulated,  and,  if  it  were  possible  to  go  further 
along  that  path,  we  should  have  joined  in  that  bold  undertaking. 
But  having  said  this,  we  can  not  accept  the  argument  that  the 
countries  of  Europe  are  trying  to  exploit  the  new  continents;  what 
we  can  not  accept  is  the  construing  of  the  attitude  which  we  took  this 
morning  in  defending  the  Baldesi  motion  as  being  an  attitude 
favorable  to  exploitation  of  the  new  countries. 

We  believe  that  there  should  be  no  privilege  for  one  country  as 
opposed  to  all  the  nations  together.  Such  was  the  formula  and 
the  principle  on  which  we  based  our  argument.  This  principle 
we  still  maintain,  and  we  claim  that  it  is  not  an  expression  of  resent¬ 
ment,  but  the  expression  of  a  sentiment  of  justice  and  of  a  really 
international  spirit,  of  a  thought  of  unfailing  attachment  to  the 
central  idea  of  the  League  of  Nations.  In  closing,  I  shall  add  that  if 
we  wanted  to  know  where  the  real  international  spirit  lies,  we 
would  have  only  to  refer  to  the  vote  expressed  this  morning  on  the 
Baldesi  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  we  take  a  vote,  gentlemen? 

The  vote  will  be  for  or  against  the  addition  of  Mr.  Gemmill’s 
amendment  to  the  motion. 

We  will  now  take  the  vote,  gentlemen,  on  the  addition  of  these 
words  suggested  by  Mr.  Gemmill.  All  those  in  favor  raise  their 
hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Now,  all  those  opposed  to  the  addition  of  these  words. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  already  drew  the  teller’s 
attention  to  the  fact  that  after  he  passed  this  table  two  others  put 
their  hands  up,  including  this  gentleman  here. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  might  we  have  another  vote,  gentle¬ 
men?  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  the  number.  Shall  we  have  a  vote 
again  on  the  addition  of  Mr.  Gemmill’s  words.  And  let  me  say 
that  if  you  vote  for  the  addition  of  Mr.  Gemmill’s  words  you  will 
have  a  chance  further  along  to  vote  on  the  resolution  as  a  whole. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Are  there  any  against? 

Then  I  will  have  to  declare  that  Mr.  Gemmill’s  motion  has  been 
carried,  and  now  I  have  to  put  the  original  motion  with  the  addition. 
All  those  in  favor  of  the  motion  with  Mr.  Gemmill’s  addition,  please 
signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Are  there  any  against? 

[Votes  counted.] 

Fifty -seven  have  voted  in  favor  and  nine  against;  therefore  I 
have  to  declare  the  resolution,  *ith  the  addition,  carried. 

The  last  item  is  a  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treatment  of 
foreign  workers.  I  will  read  it. 

The  States  ratifying  this  convention  or  acceding  to  it  shall  reciprocally  admit  to 
the  benefit  of  the  laws  and  legulations  having  regard  to  labor  protection,  as  well  as 
the  right  of  lawful  organization,  the  workers  belonging  to  one  of  these  States  ana  em¬ 
ployed  in  another,  together  with  their  families. 

And  to  that  there  are  two  amendments,  one  by  the  Swiss  Govern¬ 
ment,  as  follows: 

That  the  discussion  of  the  draft  convention  as  to  reciprocal  treatment  of  foreign 
workers  be  adjourned;  that  the  proposal  be  referred  to  the  governing  body  to  be 
examined  afresh  and  resubmittea,  if  necessary,  to  a  later  conference. 

And  there  is  also  another  amendment,  handed  in  by  Mr.  di  Palma 
Castiglione,  as  follows: 

The  Washington  conference  recommends  to  the  States  members  of  the  International 
Organization  of  Labor  to  admit  reciprocally,  by  means  of  special  agreements,  to  the 
benefits  of  the  labor  laws  and  regulations,  as  well  as  to  the  right  of  lawful  organiza¬ 
tion,  the  workers  belonging  to  one  of  the  States  and  employed  in  another,  together 
with  their  families.  The  Washington  conference  decides  that  the  transformation  of 
his  recommendation  into  a  convention  shall  be  examined  by  the  next  conference. 

I  think  1  shall  take  the  Swiss  amendment  first,  because  that 
shunts  the  whole  thing  back  to  the  governing  body,  and  if  that  be 
adopted  it  will  dispose  at  the  same  time  of  the  Italian  amendment. 


Now,  gentlemen,  the  draft  convention  is  before  you,  together  with 
the  first  amendment — that  is,  the  Swiss  amendment — the  purport  of 
which  is  to  refer  the  matter  back  to  the  governing  body,  with  a  view 
of  being  examined  afresh  and  resubmitted  to  a  later  conference. 
Thatis  the  motion.  I  will  call  upon  the  Swiss  delegate  to  speak  on  it. 

Dr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen, 
I  shall  content  myself  with  referring  to  the  arguments  which  I  had 
the  honor  of  laying  before  you  at  yesterday’s  meeting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  is  recognized. 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  Mr.  President,  I  am 
sorry  to  be  against  the  amendment  introduced  by  the  Swiss  delega¬ 
tion,  not  because  I  do  not  agree  with  the  substance  of  the  criticism 
that  yesterday  was  moved  against  the  draft  convention  submitted 
by  the  unemployment  commission,  but  because  I  think  it  is  our  duty, 
the  duty  of  this  Washington  conference,  to  give  immediately  its 
opinion  on  this  question  of  the  treatment  of  foreign  workers.  This 
question  was  brought  up  firstin  theinternational  commission  on  labor 
legislation  which  agreed  to  submit  a  special  clause  to  the  peace  con¬ 
ference.  In  this  clause  was  stated  the  principle  of  equality  of  treat¬ 
ment  without  any  restrictions  and  without  any  conditions.  This 
principle,  so  presented  without  any  conditions  and  without  any  re¬ 
strictions,  was  modified  by  the  peace  conference.  Then  the  labor 
commission  of  the  peace  conference  took  up  again  the  question  and 
introduced  the  principle  with  one  condition,  the  condition  of  reci¬ 
procity.  The  proposition  of  the  labor  committee  was  referred  to  the 
supreme  council  of  the  peace  conference,  and  the  supreme  council  of 
the  peace  conference,  with  the  decision  of  August  29,  referred  this 
matter  to  us  for  decision  If  we  accept  the  proposition  made  by  the 
Swiss  delegate  we  will  shift  our  responsibility;  we  will  acknowledge 
that  we  will  not  touch  upon  the  question ;  we  will  say  that  there  is 
another  body  which  will  be  our  creature  which  will  be  able  to  deal 
with  it.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  step  would  leave  a  very  pain¬ 
ful  impression,  not  only  on  those  gentlemen  who  have  referred  the 
matter  to  us  to  decide,  but  also  to  the  immense  number  of  working¬ 
men  who  every  year  on  account  of  unemployment  in  their  own 
country  are  obliged  to  leave  and  go  to  foreign  countries. 

In  this  instance  I  want  to  be  clearly  understood  that  I  am  not 
talking  for  the  Italian  emigrants.  The  Italian  Government  since 
1 900  has  taken  care  of  Italian  emigrants  and  has  shown  to  everybody 
how  a  State  which  has  emigration  can  take  care  of  its  emigrants. 
So  Italy  and  Italian  emigrants  are  not  concerned  in  this  matter. 

We  are  talking  in  behalf  of  the  emigrants  who  belong  to  States 
which  have  had  different  conditions  and  different  circumstances 
and  which  have  not  reached  the  stage  and  the  grade  of  social  devel¬ 
opment  that  we  have  reached.  So  Italy  is  not  directly  concerned 
in  this  matter,  but  it  is  a  question  of  the  right  of  foreign  workmen, 
and  especially  those  workmen  who  have  no  direct  protection  from 
their  own  States. 

I  think  therefore  that  we  ought  to  decide  now.  I  think  that  it  is 
our  duty  to  decide  now,  and  we  can  not  get  rid  of  this  duty.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  arguments  put  before  us  by  the  Swiss  delegate 
yesterday  were  very  forceful  and  very  fair.  He  made  us  consider 
that  we  are  not  ready  to  pass  a  vote  on  a  draft  convention.  Every 
one  of  us  knows  the  importance  of  a  convention.  He  pointed  out 
that  there  are  some  special  laws  in  some  countries  which  must  be 
carefully  examined  before  extending  their  influence  and  their 
protection  to  foreign  workmen,  and  I  am  entirely  agreed  with  him 
in  the  last  part  of  his  remarks,  and  because  of  that  I  have  the  honor 
to  submit  to  you  an  amendment  to  the  draft  convention  introduced 
by  the  commission,  in  which  I  embody  these  two  thoughts:  That 
is  to  say,  instead  of  making  a  convention,  I  suggest  making  simply 
a  recommendation  and  secondly  that  the  States  interested  be  assured 
of  reciprocal  treatment  only  by  means  of  special  agreements,  thus 
permitting  the  interested  States  to  study  the  question  and  confront 
their  own  national  labor  legislators  agreed  on  the  degree  of  reci¬ 
procity  that  can  practically  be  consented  to. 


154 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


For  that  reason  I  am  sorry,  I  repeat,  to  be  absolutely  against  the 
amendment,  shifting  our  responsibility  and  putting  the  decision 
of  this  matter  up  to  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor 
Office,  and  I  insist  that  my  amendment  be  put  to  a  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Baldesi. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy).  When  I  first  brought  forward  at  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  this  conference  the  question  of  the  reciprocity  of  rights 
of  workers  in  the  several  countries,  I  pointed  out  that  it  was  a 
fundamental  question  for  an  international  body  of  this  sort,  be¬ 
cause  it  was  the  first  affirmation  of  the  principle  of  internationalism 
in  labor  legislation — that  of  guaranteeing  reciprocity  of  rights  to 
workers  in  the  several  countries. 

I  have  had  to  modify  my  opinions  very  much  during  the  course  of 
these  debates,  and  especially  during  the  votes  that  have  been  taken 
on  the  several  motions.  I  have  had  to  convince  myself  that  here  it 
is  not  the  international  spirit  that  dominates,  but  that  all  questions 
are  looked  at  here  principally  from  the  point  of  view  of  national 
egoism. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  this  question  of  emigration  is  strictly  con¬ 
nected  with  the  question  of  unemployment.  The  way  to  reduce 
emigration  is  to  provide  employment  for  the  men  in  their  own 
countries,  and  therefore  we  come  around  again  to  the  principles 
underlying  the  motion  which  this  morning  was  voted  down  by  a 
very  small  majority,  the  question  of  raw  materials. 

To  ask  this  meeting  now  to  vote  on  the  principle  of  the  reciprocity 
of  rights  for  workers  in  the  several  countries  would  undoubtedly  be 
toaskfor  adefeat.  There  would  only  be  a  minority  who  would  be  in 
favor  of  this  motion,  and  I  realize  as  the  representative  of  a  country 
in  which  emigration  is  a  big  factor  that  the  best  thing  is  to  vote  for 
that  amendment  which  has  been  suggested  by  Mr.  di  Palma. 

But  if  this  meeting  rejects  this  motion  as  amended  by  Mr.  di 
Palma,  after  defeating  the  motion  proposed  this  morning,  which 
aimed  at  securing  raw  materials  in  order  to  employ  laborers  in  their 
own  country — if  it  now  defeats  this  motion  which  asks  for  workers 
who  emigrate  the  protection  of  reciprocity  of  rights  in  the  legislation 
of  the  countries  they  go  to — it  will  then  have  confirmed  the  fact  that 
this  assembly  recognizes  the  right  of  countries  richly  endowed  in 
natural  resources  to  maintain  in  a  state  of  economic  slavery  those 
countries  which  are  deficient  in  natural  resources. 

[Mr.  Earlier  (Belgium),  second  vice  president  of  the  conference, 
assumes  the  chair.  ] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Lazard. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  As  chairman  of  the  commission  on  un¬ 
employment,  I  ought  to  insist  upon  your  adoption  of  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  which  the  commission  has  laid  before  you  and  which  received 
a  large  majority  of  the  votes  in  the  commission  itself.  However,  I 
must  take  the  facts  into  account.  We  have  at  present  a  motion 
under  which  the  conference  would  make  no  decision  and  would 
refer  the  whole  to  the  International  Labor  Office  for  study,  and  we 
have  a  compromise  motion  brought  in  by  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione 
and  seconded  by  Mr.  Baldesi  with  the  understanding  that  it  was  a 
compromise.  For  my  own  part,  I  say  that  I  should  be  very  glad  if 
there  could  be  unanimity  on  this  compromise  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Rowell. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  the  question  raised  by 
this  draft  convention  is  one  of  particular  interest  and  great  impor¬ 
tance  to  all  the  nations  on  this  continent,  both  north  and  south.  We 
are  all  nations  receiving  immigration,  and  the  question  of  emigration 
is  of  very  great  national  moment.  This  question  was  one  of  the  most 
difficult  which  the  International  Labor  Commission  at  the  peace 
conference  had  to  consider,  and  they  did  finally  embody  in  the  nine 
articles  which,  I  think,  constitute  the  Magna  Charta  of  labor,  a 
declaration  of  policy  in  reference  to  this  matter;  but  no  proposal  was 
put  on  the  agenda  for  this  conference  dealing  with  this  particular 
•question,  and  I  submit  that  the  point  raised  by  the  Swiss  delegation, 
that  this  should  not  be  dealt  with  by  an  international  convention  at 


this  conference,  is  absolutely  sound,  and  the  amendment  moved  by 
the  delegation  from  Switzerland  should  be  accepted  by  the  con¬ 
ference. 

I  want  to  add  one  further  word.  I  fear  some  of  the  delegates  to 
the  conference  think  that  this  is  an  international  parliament  with 
unlimited  jurisdiction  over  all  matters  of  international  concern 
which  we  may  desire  to  bring  within  the  purview  of  our  own  juris¬ 
diction.  I  say,  with  great  respect,  this  conference  has  no  more 
jurisdiction  over  the  question  of  the  distribution  of  raw  materials, 
which  the  delegate  from  Italy  referred  to,  than  it  has  over  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  discovering  a  way  of  navigating  from  the  earth  to  the  moon. 
It  might  just  as  well  be  clearly  understood  that  the  nations  which 
have  raw  materials  will  deal  with  them  as  they  believe  fair  and  in 
the  national  interest,  but  they  will  deal  with  them  by  their  own 
parliaments,  their  own  legislatures,  and  they  will  not  accept  inter¬ 
national  regulations  with  reference  to  the  control  of  their  own 
property. 

Let  me  go  one  step  further.  With  reference  to  immigration,  I 
think  I  speak  the  sentiment  of  the  nations  on  this  continent,  north 
and  south,  when  I  say  they  will  control  the  character  of  their  own 
population;  they  will  do  it  fairly  and  honorably,  but  they  will  not 
accept  any  international  determination  as  to  who  should  compose 
their  own  population  or  be  entitled  to  the  right  of  citizenship  or  the 
rights  that  citizens  should  enjoy  within  their  own  territory.  If  the 
gentlemen  of  this  conference  wish  to  put  in  the  mouths  of  the  op¬ 
ponents  of  the  League  of  Nations  arguments  to  prevent  its  acceptance 
by  the  nations  in  this  conference  they  are  going  the  right  way  about 
it.  Let  us  recognize  that  this  organization  was  created  for  some  great 
purposes  and  pursue  them  without  seeking  to  bring  within  our  pur¬ 
view  matters  that  are  quite  outside  the  scope  of  the  conference  and 
which  will  militate  against  its  success  in  the  future. 

I  support  the  Swiss  proposal  because  this  was  not  on  the  agenda, 
and  I  submit  with  great  respect  that  we  have  no  right  to  propose  an 
international  convention.  We  have  no  right  to  call  upon  the  nations 
to  submit  it  to  the  parliaments  concerned.  We  can  not  depart  from 
the  principle  of  the  peace  treaty  by  introducing  in  another  way  a 
matter  and  making  it  a  subject  of  an  international  convention. 
Certainly  the  proposed  convention  is  too  vague  and  uncertain  in  its 
terms  for  an  international  convention.  If  it  should  become  an  in¬ 
ternational  convention,  accepted  and  ratified  by  the  nations  con¬ 
cerned,  it  would  become  a  law  of  the  land  and  be  binding  on  all 
citizens.  It  would  involve  under  this  treaty  certain  obligations  to 
other  nations  which  might  be  investigated  by  a  commission  ap¬ 
pointed  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty. 

It  might  involve  an  economic  boycott.  We  should  not  make  a 
law  a  matter  as  vague  and  uncertain  as  this,  which  might  involve 
all  the  consequences  I  have  mentioned  under  the  labor  clauses  and 
the  League  of  Nations.  It  is  out  of  order  because  it  was  not  on  the 
agenda,  and  it  is  too  vague  for  an  international  convention.  We 
do  the  right  thing  by  supporting  the  Swiss  delegation  resolution. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

Mr.  SCHINDLER  (Switzerland).  I  propose  the  closure  of  debate. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

[Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes  resumes  the  chair.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  closure  is  proposed,  gentlemen.  May 
I  take  a  vote  on  that?  Only  one  speech  against  is  allowed. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  The  question  now 
before  the  conference  is  too  grave  to  allow  of  the  closure  being 
asked  for  at  this  point.  Mr.  Jouhaux  asked  for  the  floor  just  at  the 
same  time  that  the  closure  was  proposed,  and  I  consider  that  this 
question  is  of  such  vital  importance  to  a  large  number  of  the 
workers  of  the  world  that  discussion  of  it  should  not  be  stifled  at 
this  stage. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  on  the  closure  for  and  against. 
All  those  in  favor  of  the  closure  will  please  signify  in  the  usual  way. 

[Votes  counted.] 

All  those  against  the  closure  will  please  signify  in  the  usual  way. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


155 


[Votes  counted -1 

The  votes  are  44  against,  22  in  favor.  Therefore  the  discussion 
must  proceed.  I  will  call  on  Mr.  Anastasi. 

Dr.  ANASTASI  (Argentina — remarks  in  Spanish).  It  is  well  that 
the  opinion  of  the  South  American  countries  should  be  heard  on 
this  question,  and  it  is  their  intention  to  vote  against  the  motion 
proposed  by  the  Swiss  delegate. 

I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Spanish  American 
Countries,  Brazil,  Argentina,  Chile,  Cuba,  Peru,  Colombia,  and 
others,  make  absolutely  no  distinction  in  the  application  of  their 
labor  laws  between  nationals  and  aliens.  On  the  contrary,  this 
principle  has  been  introduced  into  European  legislation,  but  is  not 
in  existence  in  the  countries  which  I  have  referred  to. 

I  am  not  openly  against  the  draft  convention  before  the  confer¬ 
ence,  but  will  accept  the  compromise  offered  by  the  Italian  delegate, 
the  reason  being  that  a  number  of  countries  which  have  not  adhered 
to  the  League  of  Nations  will  find  that  the  provisions  of  this  con¬ 
vention  are  an  interference  in  their  internal  affairs. 

The  question  before  the  conference  now  is  different  in  principle 
from  that  which  was  involved  in  Mr.  Baldesi’s  motion  this  morning. 
I  wish  it  clearly  understood  that  the  Latin  American  countries 
open  their  arms  to  the  immigrants  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  and 
desire  to  favor  them  in  every  way.  I  am  in  agreement  with  the 
principle  of  reciprocity,  inasmuch  as  it  has  already  been  incorpo¬ 
rated  into  the  treaty  ot  peace  and  is  in  agreement  consequently  with 
the  view  of  the  workers. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Monsiegnor  Nolens. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  I  desire  to  raise  a  word  of  protest. 
If  I  have  rightly  understood  Mr.  Baldesi,  he  said  that  he  had  to 
modify  his  opinion  and  that  he  is  now  convinced  that  not  all  ques¬ 
tions  are  considered  purely  from  the  standpoint  of  national  egotism. 
Mr.  President,  for  my  part  I  must  protest  against  that.  I  do  not 
wish  to  get  into  a  discussion,  but  I  should  like  to  say  to  Mr.  Baldesi 
that  when  one  takes  part  in  a  conference  one  must  know  how  to  be 
a  loser. 

As  for  the  convention,  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  state  why  I  can 
not  concur  in  it.  I  wonder  if  that  really  is  the  formula  of  a  conven¬ 
tion?  Could  a  State  accede,  as  we  must  expect,  to  a  general  plan 
like  that?  Next,  Mr.  President,  it  is  a  draft  convention  which  does 
not  touch  merely  a  few  questions,  a  part  of  the  legislation  on  workers, 
but  all  legislation  affecting  workers.  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President, 
that  we  are  on  the  point  of  taking  in  too  much  and  of  running  the  risk 
of  not  being  able  to  do  everything  at  one  time.  If  all  that  succeeds, 
there  will  be  no  more  unemployment;  none  of  the  unemployed  will 
be  left  without  assistance.  We  forget,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me, 
speaking  with  due  modesty,  that  this  is  the  first  of  a  series  of  con¬ 
ferences.  We  must  give  the  Governments  time  to  work  all  this  out, 
and  give  the  legislators  time  to  digest  all  that  the  Government 
prepares  for  them.  Otherwise,  one  conference  every  five  years  will 
be  enough;  we  shall  have  in  one  year  enough  material  for  the  legis¬ 
lators  for  four  or  five  years. 

Mr.  President,  I  think  that  all  those  who  took  part  in  the  con¬ 
ferences  of  the  International  Association  For  Labor  Legislation,  an 
association  which  was  to  a  certain  extent,  we  may  recall,  the  cause 
and  the  model  of  this  conference — 1  hope  it  will  furnish  the  model 
for  the  way  in  which  the  work  of  this  conference  will  be  done;  I 
mean,  not  to  bring  everything  up  at  once,  but  to  proceed  by  de¬ 
grees — all  those  who  took  part  in  that  conference  remember  the 
difficulties  which  came  up  quite  often  and  which  appeared  in  the 
reports  of  that  association.  Mr.  President,  it  is  for  this  reason  that 
I  say,  after  acquainting  myself  with  the  text  of  this  draft  conven¬ 
tion,  that  I  can  not  give  my  vote  for  it.  Why?  Because  it  is  my 
deep  conviction  that  it  would  lead  to  nothing.  If  one  desires  to 
present  a  draft  convention  to  any  Government  whatsoever  care  must 
be  taken  that  it  is  well  drawn  up  in  all  its  details  by  the  one  who 
has  it  to  do.  I  think  that  that  can  not  be  said  of  this  draft  conven¬ 
tion.  Now,  Mr.  President,  there  are  two  motions;  a  proposal,  I 
believe,  and  an  amendment. 


This  question  is  not  of  such  great  importance  for  my  country, 
which  does  not  receive  much  immigration,  as  for  other  countries, 
which  receive  a  great  deal.  I  may  say  that  for  my  part  I  might 
apply  its  principle  immediately.  As  to  the  principle,  I  am  agreed. 
But  for  the  time  being  the  point  is  to  find  out  whether  we  can  go  as  far 
as  Jlr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  proposes.  1  do  not  wish  to  go  into  a 
criticism  of  this  plan,  but  I  believe  that  it  is  better  to  leave  this  draft 
to  be  discussed  more  thoroughly.  Let  it  be  discussed,  but  discussed 
consecutively;  first  the  most  necessary  items,  then  the  rest.  But,  I 
repeat  once  more,  1  believe  that  there  are  nations  which  have  more 
interest  in  it  than  ours  and  which  will  perhaps  pronounce  upon 
the  Swiss  proposal  and  upon  the  proposal  of  the  Italian  delegate. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  gentlemen,  it  is  6  o’clock.  If  you  are 
disposed  to  vote  now,  we  might  take  a  vote;  but  if  discussion  is  to  be 
continued,  we  will  have  to  resume  to-morrow  morning  at  10. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  move  the  closure  of  the  debate. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Do  you  wish  to  take  a  vote?  Mr.  Draper 
moves  the  closure. 

Dr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  I  called  for  the  floor  before 
closure  was  proposed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Do  you  want  to  speak  against  the 
closure? 

Dr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  I  ask  leave  to  speak  upon  the 
closure. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  I  haven’t  got  his  name,  and  even  if 
I  had  it  would  make  no  difference.  I  am  compelled  to  take  a 
closure  motion  when  it  is  put.  I  can  take  one  speech  against  it, 
and  no  other. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  But  I  was  on  the  list,  it  seems  to  me; 
I  am  sure,  I  was  on  the  list. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux  is  the  first  speaker,  and  of 
course  1  shall  call  upon  him  in  the  event  of  any  discussion. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  If  the  discussion  doesn’t  continue,  I 
haven’t  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Shall  we  take  a  vote  on  the  closure? 

All  in  favor  of  the  closure  please  signify. 

[Dr.  Rufenacht  (Switzerland)  rises.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  want  to  speak  against  the  closure? 

Dr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Dr.  Rufenacht  is  recognized. 

Dr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen, 
I  am  under  the  impression  that  several  speakers  have  interpreted 
my  proposition  in  the  sense  that  I  am  positively  and  definitely 
opposed  to  general  reciprocity  between  the  States.  Such  is  not  the 
case.  The  only  thing  that  I  asked  was  to  give  the  Governments 
time  to  examine - 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  matter  before  the  meeting  is  the  closure, 
nothing  else.  If  the  gentleman  has  anything  to  say  why  at  this 
moment  the  closure  should  not  be  put,  I  am  prepared  to  hear  him, 
but  I  can  not  hear  anything  on  the  merits  of  the  resolution  or  the 
amendments  thereto. 

Dr.  RUFENACHT  (Switzerland).  I  yield  the  floor. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now  we  will  have  a  vote  on  the  closure. 
All  in  favor  of  the  closure  please  signify  by  raising  your  hands. 
[Hands  raised.]  All  those  against  the  closure  raise  their  right  hands. 
[Hands  raised .  ] 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  If  the  regular  procedure  had  been 
followed,  you  would  have  recognized  me  before  this.  1  am  not 
asking  to  be  recognized  just  for  the  fun  of  hearing  myself  talk. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Fifty-one  have  voted  in  favor  of  the 
closure  and  21  against.  Therefore  I  have  to  declare  the  discussion 
closed. 

Now,  I  want  to  take  a  vote  on  the  Swiss  amendment,  which  is  as 
follows: 

That  the  discussion  on  the  draft  convention  as  to  the  reciprocal  treatment  of 
foreign  workers  be  adjourned;  that  the  proposal  he  referred  to  the  governing  body 
to  be  examined  afresh  and  resubmitted  if  necessary  to  a  later  conference 

I  want  to  take  a  vote  on  that,  Mr.  Baldesi. 


¥ 


1J56 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  Swiss  amendment  is  before  the  meeting. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy).  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  it  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Baldesi?  I  will 
hear  a  point  of  order,  but  nothing  else. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy- — remarks  in  Italian).  I  ask  forarecord  vote, 
and  submit  a  paper  with  the  req-uisite  signatures  to  the  Secretary. 

(Mr.  Jules  Carlier,  of  Belgium,  resumes  the  chair.) 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  shall  vote  on  the  proposition  of  the 
Swiss  delegation  which- will  be  read  to  you. 

The  CLERK.  It  has  already  been  read. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  already  been  read  once,  but  read  it 
again,  anyway,  that  there  may  be  no  misunderstanding  about  the 
vote. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL,  interpreting  the  vice  president’s 
remarks.  Those  who  are  in  favor  of  Dr.  Rufenacht’s  motion  say 
“Yes,”  and  those  who  are  not  in  favor  say  “No.” 

[Mr.  Lazard  (France)  risesl. 

The  Interpreter.  You  are  requested  to  answer  yes  or  no. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  By  yes  in  favor  of  the  motion. 

The  Interpreter.  By  yes  in  favor  of  the  motion. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  And  by  no - 

The  Interpreter.  And  by  no  against  the  Rufenacht  motion. 

[The  result  of  the  roll  call  was  as  follows:] 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Lfivie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 
Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 
France: 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 
Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 
Mr.  D.  S.  Majonbanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 
Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 


Yes -26. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 
Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 
Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 
Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 
Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rutenacht. 
Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Carlos  Caesar  de  Oliveira  Sam- 
paio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Fransisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland : 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L^on  Jouhaux. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulas. 
India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 


No — 47. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 
Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto 
Netherlands: 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 
Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Jos6  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 
Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 


Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slawko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Franeisco  Largo  Caballero. 


Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  SjSborg. 
Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


Mr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay).  The  delegates  from  Paraguay  hare 
abstained  from  voting. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  figures  are  47  against  the 
motion,  26  in  favor.  The  motion  is  therefore  lost. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  must  now,  gentlemen,  take  action  on 
the  amendment  of  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione.  This  amendment 
consists  of  two  sentences. 


The  Washington  conference  recommends  to  the  states  membeis  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Organization  of  Labor  to  admit  reciprocally,  by  means  of  special  agreements, 
to  the  benefits  of  the  labor  laws  and  regulations  as  well  as  to  the  right  of  lawful  or¬ 
ganization  the  workers  belonging  to  one  of  the  states  and  employed  in  another, 
together  with  their  families.  The  Washington  conference  decides  that  the  trans¬ 
formation  of  this  recommendation  into  a  convention  shall  be  examined  by  the  next 
conference  in  1920. 

A  division  of  the  amendment  is  requested,  gentlemen,  between 
the  first  and  the  second  sentence.  Consequently,  we  shall  first 
discuss  the  first  sentence. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  Question! 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  does  not  anyone  ask  to  be  recognized, 
does  there? 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  No. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Then  I  shall  call  for  a  vote  on  the  first 
sentence,  the  first  part  of  the  amendment. 

Several  Delegates.  Question! 

.The  PRESIDENT.  Those  in  favor  of  adopting  it,  please  raise 
their  hands. 

(Votes  counted.) 

Those  opposed,  please  raise  their  hands. 

There  is  no  quorum.  Gentlemen,  is  there  nobody  in  the  corridor 
who  is  willing  to  vote? 

A  Delegate.  No;  they  are  not  voting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  the  vote  has  not  indicated  a 
quorum,  but  there  are  certainly  enough  members  in  the  hall  to  make 
up  a  quorum.  I  shall,  therefore,  proceed  to  take  a  second  vote, 
so  that,  if  they  will,  those  persons  here  present  may  vote  either  for 
or  against  and  thus  permit  us  to  have  a  quorum.  Otherwise,  we 
shall  have  wasted  our  afternoon. 

The  PRESIDENT.  ‘Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  I  wish  to  move 
the  adjournment  of  the  sitting.  A  large  number  of  the  delegates 
have  left  the  room,  and  any  vote  that  is  taken  to-day  will  not  be  a 
real  expression  of  the  wishes  of  the  conference.  It  is  now  a  quarter 
past  6,  15  minutes  beyond  our  time  of  closing.  I  move  that  this 
conference  do  adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  A  motion  for  adjournment  takes  precedence 
over  all  others;  therefore,  we  must  first  put  Sir  Malcolm  Delev ingne’s 
motion  to  a  vote. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  am  not  opposed  to  the  motion  to 
adjourn,  but  I  notice  that  when  certain  delegates  consider  that  a 
question  has  been  sufficiently  discussed  a  motion  of  closure  is  heard. 
When  they  decide  not  to  continue  the  discussion  and  not  to  reach 
any  solution,  they  leave  the  room  and  thus  make  it  impossible  for 
the  conference  to  vote. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  am  opposed  to  the  adjournment  at 
this  time.  We  have  taken  a  vote.  There  were  54  votes.  There 
are  a  number  of  delegates  who  abstained  from  voting.  ■  We  should 
complete  that  vote  and  let  the  delegates  either  vote  fa i  or  against 
it,  and  then  we  can  adjourn. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


157 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  adjourn  has  precedence  over 
all  others,  according  to  the  standing  orders.  We  are  going  to  vote, 
and  we  shall  see  that  we  conform  to  the  standing  orders.  Those  in 
favor  of  adjournment,  please  raise  the  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed,  please  raise  the  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Adjournment  is  rejected  by  50  votes  against  9.  lienee  we  shall 
resume  the  voting  on  which  I  requested  a  recount  just  now,  namely, 
on  the  first  part  of  the  amendment  of  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Those  in  favor  of  adopting  it,  please  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Now  it  is  the  turn  of  those  who  are  opposed. 

[Votes  counted.] 

We  have  a  quorum.  The  first  part  of  the  amendment  is  carried  bv  60 
votes.  The  second  part  is  now  to  be  voted  upon.  It  is  as  follows: 

The  conference  decides  that  the  transformation  of  this  recommendation  into  a 
convention  shall  be  examined  by  the  next  conference  in  1920. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  is  recognized. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President, 
may  I  point  out  to  the  conference  that  the  first  part  of  Mr.  di  Palma’s 
motion  stands  on  the  same  footing  as  the  recommendation  in  the 
second  resolution  of  the  unemployment  commission  in  regard  to  the 
agenda  of  the  next  conference?  May  I  suggest,  if  it  is  not  out  of 
order,  that  this  part  of  Mr.  di  Palma’s  motion  should  be  deferred  for 
consideration  with  the  other  subjects  in  the  same  way  as  the  second 
resolution  has  been  already  deferred  this  afternoon  by  vote  of  the 
conference?  May  I  point  out  that  if  a  vote  is  taken  now  it  is  a  final 
vote?  It  has  to  be  a  record  vote,  and  has  to  be  carried  by  a  majority 
of  two-thirds.  I  think  it  will  be  more  convenient  to  everybody,  the 
partisans  and  the  opponents  of  the  motion,  that  we  should  defer  the 
vote  until  we  consider  all  the  subjects  that  have  been  suggested  for 
inclusion  in  the  agenda  for  next  year’s  conference. 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  May  I  ask  one 
question  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne?  Will  this  question  be  put 
before  the  conference  before  we  leave  Washington? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Yes. 

Mr.  DRAPER  (Canada).  I  submit,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  have 
already  decided  to  take  a  vote  on  this  proposition  and  that  we  split 
the  proposition  in  order  to  vote  upon  it,  not  to  speak  upon  it.  We 
have  carried  the  closure  on  this  matter  and  I  think  we  should  take 
the  vote  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Castiglione. 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  We  ask  what  the  dis¬ 
cussion  is  about.  Are  you  discussing  the  motion  made  by  Sir 
Malcolm  Delevingne  or  the  one  made  by  Mr.  Draper? 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  are  discussing  the  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm 
Dolevingne. 

Mr.  di  PALMA  CASTIGLIONE.  For  my  part,  I  am  not  opposed 
to  accepting  the  suggestion  made  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  but 
it  is  understood  that  this  proposal  shall  be  referred  to  the  committee 
of  selection  of  the  governing  body,  in  order  that  they  may  decide 
before  leaving  Washington  what  is  to  be  done  for  the  next  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  suppose  that  the  proposal  of  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne  has  precisely  the  sense  that  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione 
gives  it. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain)..  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  to  say,  that  you  give  it  exactly  the 
sense  of  what  was  done  two  hours  ago  for  the  other  motion? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  On  those  conditions  we  are  agreed. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  remains  for  us  to  appoint  the  time  for 
to-morrow’s  session,  which  will  be  10  o’clock. 

[At  6.25  the  meeting  was  adjourned  until  Thursday,  November 
27,  1919,  at  10  o’clock  in  the  morning.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Fini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  A .  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr.  Michel 
L6vie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Dr.  Fausto  Ferraz.  , 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Carlos  Caesar  de  Oliveira  Sam- 
paio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Tarsons). 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chili: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Czechoslovakia: 

Mr.  M.  S.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 
Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  C.  Oersted  (substitute  for  Mr. 
H.  Vestesen). 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

Finland: 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio 
Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France" 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (substitute  for 
Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  A.  J.  C.  Ross  (substitute  for  Mr. 

D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Angiolo  Cabrini). 
Comm.  E.  Bareni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 


Japan: 

Mr.  Sanii  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  v-an  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr.  Ole 
Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes 
Mr.  Federico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  A.  Zubieta. 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr,  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Jos6  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavong6e. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr  Velimir  Stoykovich  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 

Mr.  C4sar  Zumeta. 


158 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


TWENTY-SECOND  SESSION— THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER  27,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  10.15  o’clock  a.  m.,  Mr.  Jules  Carlier 
(Belgium),  vice  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  General  is  recognized  in 
order  to  read  some  communications. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  been  asked  to  make  the 
following  announcements: 

In  the  name  of  the  factory  inspectors  of  the  different  countries  who  have  met  at 
this  conference  as  delegates  and  technical  advisers,  we  wish  to  inform  the  conference 
that  a  meeting  of  factory  inspectors  took  place  on  the  25th  of  November,  at  which 
it  was  decided  to  meet  each  year  at  the  same  time  as  the  International  Labor  Confer¬ 
ence,  in  order  to  follow  up  the  work  of  organizing  and  administering  factory  inspection, 
with  a  view  to  attaining  the  necessary  degree  of  uniformity  which  would  enable 
comparable  results  to  be  obtained.  A  provisional  committee  has  been  elected, 
including  Mr.  Bellhouse  of  Great  Britain,  Mr.  Sokal  of  Poland,  Miss  Hesselgren 
of  Sweden,  Dr.  Wegman  of  Switzerland,  and  Mr  Boulin  of  France.  The  factory 
inspectors  who  have  not  yet  given  their  addresses  are  requested  to  furnish  them  to 
Dr.  Wegman. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  a  point  of  order. 
I  want  to  refer  you  to  article  13  of  the  standing  orders  referring  to 
notice  of  motions,  in  which  it  says  that  on  receipt  of  the  text  of 
resolutions  the  secretariat  shall  circulate  them  on  the  day  following 
that  on  which  it  is  received.  I  gave  a  notice  of  motion  three  days 
ago  and  it  has  not  yet  been  circulated.  I  wish  to  draw  the  attention 
of  the  secretary  to  that. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Mr.  Crawford’s  motion  has  been 
translated,  but  owing  to  the  fact  that  to-day  is  a  holiday  the  printing 
was  cut  short,  or  else  it  would  have  been  printed.  It  will  be  sten¬ 
ciled  and  distributed  to-day. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  agenda  for  the  day  calls  for  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  application  of  the 
48-hour  week  to  countries  where  special  conditions  exist.  Mr. 
Barnes  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman  and  fellow  dele¬ 
gates,  it  falls  to  my  lot  now  to  present  the  report  of  the  special 
commission,  in  which  you  instructed  an  examination  of  the  question 
of  the  application  of  article  405  to  countries  claiming  special  con¬ 
sideration.  The  question  naturally  falls  into  two  parts,  and  I  want, 
if  you  will  allow  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  suggest  to  the  conference 
that  we  should  confine  ourselves  now  to  the  first  part — that  is  to  say, 
are  the  countries  who  claim  special  consideration  entitled  to  that 
consideration,  leaving  the  question  as  to  what  modifications  are 
necessary  for  the  second  discussion. 

I  will  tell  you  the  reason  for  that.  The  Japanese  delegates  have 
put  in  a  minority  report  in  which  they  say  that  Japan  is  not  entitled 
to  any  special  consideration,  and  that  the  eight-hour  day  as  applied 
to  other  countries  should  be  applied  to  Japan  along  with  those  other 
countries.  Well,  now,  I  think  we  ought  to  settle  that  issue  first, 
and  then  after  that  issue  is  settled  it  is  cleared  out  of  the  way  and  we 
can  discuss  the  actual  proposals  that  the  committee  have  made  for 
modification.  I  put  the  question  to  the  committee  in  each  case  after 
hearing  the  evidence,  was  the  country  entitled  to  special  considera¬ 
tion,  and  the  answer  in  every  case  was  in  the  affirmative,  unani¬ 
mously  so  in  all  countries  except  three.  There  were  three  on  the 
commission  who  were  of  opinion  that  Japan  should  not  have  any 
special  consideration.  Four  of  the  committee  were  of  the  same  mind 
in  regard  to  Greece,  and  one  in  regard  to  Roumania,  but  in  all  the 
other  countries  there  was  a  unanimous  opinion  that  a  case  had  been 
made  out  for  special  consideration.  And  I  want  the  conference  to 
indorse  the  finding  of  the  committee  that  in  all  the  cases  submitted 
to  us  there  was  some  reason  for  special  consideration.  I  might 
qualify  that  somewhat  by  the  statement  that  with  regard  to  South 
Africa  and  tropical  America,  all  they  want  in  the  way  of  special  con¬ 
sideration  is  that  in  the  case  of  South  Africa  they  should  have  the 
right  to  bring  up  to  the  conference  next  year  some  considerations 
which  may  then  weigh  with  them  in  regard  to  a  postponement  in 
regard  to  special  classes  of  labor. 


And  in  regard  to  South  America  the  question  of  the  treatment  of 
sugar  in  the  elementary  stages  came  up,  and  we  had  to  decide  that 
that  was  a  matter  entirely  for  the  competent  authority  of  Cuba  to 
decide,  as  to  whether  that  was  agriculture  or  industry. 

Well,  now,  just  let  me  state  very  briefly,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  reasons 
given  to  us  why  these  countries  should  have  special  consideration 
given  to  them.  In  Japan  the  factory  act  limits  the  working  day  tc 
13  hours  per  day,  and  in  one  industry  which  is  the  largest  industry 
in  the  country,  120  hours  overtime  is  allowed  in  addition  to  that 
13-hour  day.  Moreover,  there  is  no  weekly  holiday  or  Sunday  holi¬ 
day,  and  that  13  hours  is  actually  worked  in  the  silk  industry  every 
day  except  2  each  month,  that  is,  on  the  1st  and  15th  of  the  month 
there  are  holidays,  but  apart  from  that  the  13  hours  per  day  is  actually 
worked  all  the  time.  The  cotton  industry  works  11  hours  a  day.  In 
other  industries  the  working  day  nominally  is  about  10,  but  actually 
is  about  12,  because  of  the  fact  that  overtime  is  quite  common  and 
continuous,  and  therefore  we  have  this  condition  of  things  in  Japan, 
that  in  the  silk  industry  which  employs  900,000  work  people,  the 
hours  are  13  per  day,  plus  one  hour  overtime  120  days  in  the  year. 
In  the  cotton  industry,  the  hours  are  11.  In  other  industries, 
including  overtime,  they  are  about  12  per  day. 

Therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  quite  clear  to  me,  and  I  hope  that 
it  will  be  quite  clear  to  this  conference,  that  Japan  is  entitled  to  some 
modifications  in  the  treaty  in  regard  to  an  eight-hour  day.  That  is 
to  say,  if  you  were  to  bring  down  Japan  to  the  same  level  as  other 
countries  you  would  be  asking  Japan  to  reduce  her  production  by 
about  60  per  cent,  and  you  would  be  asking  other  countries  to 
reduce  theirs  probably  by  about  10  per  cent.  Therefore,  I  am  not 
now  concerned  with  the  particular  modification.  I  am  only 
asking  the  conference  to  agree  that  modifications  are  justified,  in 
view  of  the  circumstances  that  I  have  just  mentioned. 

In  regard  to  India  I  think  the  case  is  no  less  clear.  In  India  the 
working  day  is  about  12  hours;  that  is,  the  factory  limit  is  12  hours 
per  day.  It  is  true  to  say  that  in  India  the  hours  are  much  below  12 
in  many  industries,  but,  here  again,  India  is  a  vast  country,  with 
310,000,000  of  population.  They  have  had  very  little  time  in  which 
to  get  accurate  information  to  justify  them  in  binding  themselves  as 
to  the  application  of  an  8-hour  day  in  the  immediate  future,  and 
therefore,  with  regard  to  India  the  case  is  no  less  justified  that  some 
modifications  are  justified. 

In  China,  the  case  is,  I  think,  more  clear  still.  China  has  never 
had  a  factory  act,  and  the  country  is  in  somewhat  of  a  chaotic  condi¬ 
tion,  I  mean  govemmentally.  The  Chinese  representative  met  us 
very  fairly  and  explained  that,  so  far  as  he  was  aware,  the  Chinese 
Government  had  very  little  information  in  regard  to  industrial 
conditions  in  China,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there  is  very 
little  information,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  very  few  factories, 
except  a  few  in  the  vicinity  of  the  large  towns,  the  case  for 
special  consideration  for  China  was,  we  thought,  made  out. 

In  Persia  there  are  no  factories.  In  Siam  there  are  a  few  factories 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Bangkok,  some  treating  cane  sugar  and 
some  wood  works,  or  something  of  that  kind,  but  there  is  very 
little  industry.  Therefore,  there  is  no  case  for  the  application  of  an 
eight-hour  day  to  Siam,  having  regard  to  their  inexperience  and  the 
smallness  of  the  industry  there. 

In  regard  to  Roumania,  and  to  the  Greek  position,  we  had  evidence 
that  they  had  been  much  devastated  during  the  war,  that  the  Greeks 
had  had  added  to  them  a  large  amount  of  territory,  that  Roumanian 
industries  had  been  almost  spoiled  during  the  war,  and  that  there¬ 
fore  some  special  consideration  was  due  to  them  in  their  case. 

I  think  I  have  said  sufficient,  Mr  Chairman,  to  justify  my  state¬ 
ment  of  special  considerations  necessary,  and  I  now  move  this 
resolution: 

That  modifications  of  the  main  convention  respecting  the  application  of  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  eight-hours  day  and  forty-eight-hours  week  to  the  countries  named  in 
the  report  of  the  special  commission  are  justified. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


In  addition  to  that  I  understand  the  Japanese  workmen  are  to  of¬ 
fer  a  motion  stating  that,  in  their  opinion,  Japan  is  not  entitled  to 
special  consideration. 

As  I  said  before  in  opening,  Mr.  Chairman,  when  we  get  rid  of 
that  particular  issue  we  can  then  discuss  the  modifications  that  the 
commission  actually  propose.  I  propose  the  resolution. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  debate  is  now  upon  the  motion  which 
has  just  been  read.  Mr.  Masumoto  is  recognized. 

Mr.  MASUMOTO  (Japan).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  regret  that  I  can  not 
refrain  from  protesting  in  the  name  of  the  Japanese  workers  against 
the  spedal  treatment  of  Japan,  on  the  principle  that  I  am  going  to 
state;  and  I  desire  to  move  that  the  special  treatment  of  Japan  in 
regard  to  the  8-hour  day  and  /18-hour  week  shall  be  refused,  and 
equal  treatment  with  other  countries  on  the  8-hour  principle  be 
applied  to  Japan. 

Mr.  Chairman,  ladies,  and  gentlemen:  You  can  see  here  this 
little  flag  and  imagine  the  Island  Empire  of  Japan.  Can  you  believe 
it  when  I  say  that,  behind  this  flag,  there  are  several  millions  of  toil¬ 
ers  unjustly  treated  under  the  autocracy  which  is  an  enemy  of  social 
justice?  The  principal  aim  we  have  here,  in  this  meeting,  is  to  pro¬ 
tect  that  social  justice,  which  is  the  spirit  of  this  labor  conference. 
The  report  that  was  presented  to  this  conference  from  the  special 
commission  is  based  on  the  idea  of  special  treatment  for  Japan, 
because  of  the  special  condition  of  Japan’s  industrial  life. 

We,  the  Japanese  workers,  are  firmly  opposed  to  this  special 
treatment,  because  such  special  treatment  is  not  needed  on  account 
of  the  condition  of  the  general  industrial  life  of  our  country,  but 
rathe;  for  the  protection  of  autocracy.  As  everybody  knows,  Japan, 
go  fat,  has  been  accorded  equal  treatment,  as  well  as  equal  oppor¬ 
tunity  with  other  European  countries  in  nearly  everything.  How¬ 
ever,  we  now  find  ourselves  given  special  treatment  and  a  different 
kind  of  opportunity.  They  say  it  is  good  for  Japan’s  production, 
but  we  say  it  is  good  for  autocratic  oppression. 

Special  treatment  for  Japan  is  nothing  but  the  helping  hand  of 
oppression  for  helpless  toilers,  who  are  seeking  the  light  of  social 
justice  and  freedom,  from  the  spirit  of  differential  treatment.  To 
save  them  from  this  injustice  must  be  the  duty  of  such  body  as 
the  International  Labor  Conference,  whose  spirit,  I  believe,  is  de¬ 
rived  from  the  idea  of  social  justice. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  can  you  imagine  that  under  this  little  flag 
there  is  a  police  regulation  whose  aim  is  to  interfere  with  the  organ¬ 
ization  of  labor.  Japanese  autocrats  try  to  explain  this  regulation 
as  a  means  of  keeping  the  public  peace,  and  not  as  a  means  of 
interfering  with  labor  organization;  but  such  an  explanation  makes 
of  the  law  a  kind  of  “sheathed  sword.”  For,  after  all,  this  same  law 
of  which  I  speak  is  like  a  sword  too  easily  put  into  action  when 
occasion  arises. 

The  hand  of  the  Japanese  autocrats  is  most  uncertain.  Into  this 
dangerous  hand  the  weapon  of  special  treatment  of  her  industry  is 
going  to  be  placed.  The  helpless  industrial  workers  in  Japan  are 
mostly  female,  the  number  being  estimated  at  700,000.  Most  of 
them  are  employed  in  the  textile  industries.  You  would  not  be¬ 
lieve  that  their  life  in  the  factories  is  almost  that  of  slavery.  It  is  no 
exaggeration  to  say  that  these  factories,  from  the  social  standpoint, 
are  an  exact  parallel  to  the  political  extraterritoriality  in  Japan 
in  former  days.  Those  factories  are  beyond  the  reach  of  justice. 

You  know,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  the  one  way  that  such  a  dreadful 
condition  as  this  can  be  cleared  away  is  to  turn  on  the  light,  taking 
away  special  treatment  provisions  from  the  autocrats’  hands.  Such 
a  light  as  this  is  the  spirit  of  this  conference,  whose  aim  is  social 
justice  and  true  democracy.  I  trust  in  your  sound  judgment  about 
this  question  and  leave  it  in  your  hands. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  fellow  delegates,  I  beg  in  closing  to  inform  you 
that  my  statement  on  behalf  of  the  Japanese  workers  is  now  in 
the  hands  of  the  Chair.  I  desire  to  have  that  statement  put  upon 
record  with  the  consent  of  this  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Kamada,  of  Japan,  is  recognized. 


15(J 

Mr.  KAMADA  (Japan).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen, 
labor  problems  in  Europe  and  America  have  a  long  history,  dating 
back  to  the  Industrial  Revolution.  During  the  last  hundred  years 
the  wonderful  development  of  industry  in  the  western  countries 
has  given  rise  to  many  serious  disputes  between  capital  and  labor 
which  have  threatened  to  shake  society  to  its  very  foundation. 
Therefore,  in  these  countries  where  industry  has  attained  its  highest 
development,  every  effort  has  been  made  to  solve  labor  problems 
from  the  standpoints  of  both  theory  and  practice.  The  result  is 
that  in  those  great  industrial  countries  labor  legislation  has  been 
well-nigh  perfected.  Moreover,  as  organizations  by  means  of  which 
both  workers  and  employers  seek  to  protect  their  own  interests  de¬ 
velop,  the  position  occupied  by  labor  in  industry  is  gradually  ap¬ 
proaching  in  importance  the  position  occupied  by  capital. 

Speaking  more  specifically,  the  problem  of  the  hours  of  work, 
which  came  into  prominence  after  that  of  wages,  has  been  the  focus 
of  labor  disputes  for  at  least  three-quarters  of  a  century.  But  it 
should  be  pointed  out  that  whenever  a  dispute  occurred  its  settle¬ 
ment  registered  an  advance  toward  the  solution  of  the  entire  prob¬ 
lem.  Meanwhile,  employers  in  different  countries,  moved  by  social 
and  economic  considerations,  gradually  came  to  recognize  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  shortening  the  hours  of  work  until  the  adoption  of  the  10- 
hour  workday  began  in  Europe  and  America.  Since  that  time  many 
years  have  elapsed,  and  during  the  latter  part  of  this  period  the 
very  foundations  of  civilized  society  have  been  gravely  menaced  by 
the  greatest  war  in  history.  Nevertheless,  the  movement  for  im¬ 
proving  the  conditions  of  labor  has  not  thereby  suffered  in  the 
slightest;  and  when  the  Paris  peace  treaty  was  drafted,  the  labor 
clauses  were  given  a  very  important  position,  a  fact  to  which  I  need 
not  draw  your  attention. 

But  the  conditions  in  Japan  are  different.  It  is  only  20  or  30 
years  since  the  factory  system  of  Europe  and  America  was  first  intro¬ 
duced  into  the  country,  and  as  yet  there  are  few  industries  which 
can  compare  with  the  corresponding  industries  in  Europe  and 
America,  either  in  their  organization  or  in  their  importance.  The 
result  is  that  the  relation  between  workers  and  employers  does  not 
yet  offer  many  perplexing  problems.  Indeed,  there  have  been 
strikes  and  other  troubles  in  the  past,  but  they  concerned  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  wages.  As  a  rule,  they  were  easily  settled  or  disposed  of, 
and  did  not  attract  much  attention  on  the  part  of  the  public,  because 
there  was  no  strong  organization  at  the  back  of  either  the  working 
people  or  the  employers  to  force  the  issue  to  a  critical  point.  It  is 
no  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  Japanese  people,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  who  are  interested  in  the  study  of  such  matters,  began  to 
attach  importance  to  labor  problems  only  last  spring  when  the  dis¬ 
cussion  at  the  Paris  Peace  Conference  gave  prominence  to  these 
problems.  In  other  words,  while  in  Europe  and  America  labor 
problems  have  a  history  extending  back  for  more  than  100  years,  it  is 
only  half  a  year  since  they  began  to  be  treated  in  Japan  as  national 
and  international  problems,  a  fact  of  which  we  ought  not  to  lose  sight. 

The  reason  why  the  Japanese  people  have  thus  become  suddenly 
wide-awake  to  the  importance  of  labor  problems  is  that  they  now 
appreciate  the  fact  that  the  permanent  peace  of  the  world  can  no 
longer  be  realized  if  the  interests  of  working  people  are  ignored. 
There  are  already  unmistakable  signs  in  the  country  which  indicate 
that  the  people  are  determined  to  treat  labor  problems  with  serious¬ 
ness  and  to  cooperate  with  the  Europeans  and  Americans  in  their 
efforts  to  improve  the  conditions  of  labor.  Of  course,  an  experience 
of  a  few  years  can  not  be  expected  to  be  as  useful  as  an  experience 
of  a  century  and  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  Japan  will  not  be 
able  at  once  to  affect  such  improvements  to  the  same  extent  or  de¬ 
gree  as  may  the  most  advanced  countries  in  Europe  and  America, 
no  matter  how  sincere  and  eager  she  might  be  in  her  efforts.  Japan 
has  already  evinced  to  you  her  great  sincerity  and  eagerness  by 
deciding,  of  her  own  accord,  to  fall  in  line  with  other  countries  in 
regulation  of  unhealthy  processes  in  industries  as  well  as  in  the  pro¬ 
hibition  of  night  work  for  women  and  children,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  effects  of  these  measures  upon  her  industry  will  not  be  in- 


160 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


considerable.  Only  in  the  hours  of  work  do  we  ask  for  special 
treatment,  in  the  sense  already  referred  to  by  the  Right  Honorable 
Mr.  Barnes,  and  here  we  wish  to  adopt  a  9J-hour  day  instead  of  the 
8-hour  day.  This  may  seem  to  some  to  put  Japan  in  an  unenviable 
position.  But  I  should  like  to  remind  you  of  the  fact  that  the  en¬ 
forcement  of  a  9^-hour  day  in  Japan  means  the  reduction  of  working 
hours  by  2  hours  as  a  rule,  and  in  some  industries  by  3  or  4  hours  per 
day,  and  that  this  will  entail  a  far  more  abrupt  change  for  Japanese 
industries  than  would  the  reduction  of  working  hours  from  10  to  8 
per  day  for  European  countries  after  their  experience  of  many  years 
with  the  former  standard.  I  hope,  therefore,  you  may  appreciate 
what  a  great  sacrifice  Japan  is  offering  to  make  at  the  present  con¬ 
ference  in  order  to  follow  the  general  trend  of  the  world. 

You  may  recall  that,  during  one  of  the  earlier  full  sessions  of  this 
conference,  Mr.  Mertens,  the  workmen’s  delegate  from  Belgium, 
criticized  the  methods  whereby  the  Japanese  Government  had 
selected  the  workmen’s  delegate  of  Japan  and  that  he  urged  upon  the 
Japanese  Government  to  show  a  greater  sincerity  in  the  matter  in  the 
future.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  a  feat  commending  itself  to  your 
applause  that  Japan,  which  has  such  a  limited  experience  in  dealing 
with  labor  problems,  managed  somehow  to  complete  the  selection  of 
the  three  different  delegations  to  this  conference  on  very  short  notice 
and  succeeded  in  sending  them  here  over  many  thousands  of  miles  of 
land  and  sea  just  in  time  for  the  opening  session.  As  to  the  manner 
of  selecting  delegates,  I  might  say  that  you  can  not  expect  any 
country  to  be  able  to  solve  the  problem  satisfactorily  unless  you  allow 
it  sufficient  time  for  working  it  out.  Again,  in  regard  to  trade-unions, 
1  may  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  law  in  Japan 
which  prohibits  their  formation,  and  working  people  are  at  perfect 
liberty  to  organize  them  if  they  wish  to  do  so.  Yet  the  Government 
is  not,  of  course,  satisfied  with  this  and  is  now  making  preparations  to 
enact  a  law  positively  recognizing  trade-unions  so  as  to  encourage 
their  formation  and  development  under  its  protection.  This  is  also 
one  of  the  evidences  of  Japan’s  aspirations  to  contribute  toward  the 
progress  of  mankind. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  consider  it  a  great  honor  and  pleasure  to 
have  had  this  opportunity  of  explaining  to  you  how  sincere  and  earn¬ 
est  the  Japanese  people  are  in  dealing  with  the  problems  before  us, 
and  of  letting  this  fact  become  known  through  you  among  your  own 
countrymen.  I  wish  also  to  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  state 
that  the  Japanese  people  hope  to  attain  as  great  a  success  in  social 
reforms  during  the  next  20  or  30  years  as  they  have  had  in  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  industrial  system  of  the  West  during  the  past  few  decades, 
so  that  they  may  be  enabled  to  catch  up  with  the  most  advanced 
nations,  for  they  firmly  believe  that  social  reforms  are  indispensible 
in  Japan,  not  only  for  the  peace  of  the  world  but  also  for  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  her  own  people. 

1  regret  to  add  that  I  have  to  deny  the  fact  of  everything  that  our 
labor  delegate  has  stated. 

As  for  the  injustice  and  the  oppression  by  the  employers  which  he 
has  cited,  I  deny  them  with  responsibility.  Those  things,  let  me 
declare  to  you,  can  not  happen  in  these  days  when  we  have  200 
factory  inspectors  and  effective  systems  of  inspection. 

I  thank  you  lor  your  attention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  Mr.  Masumoto  requested  yester¬ 
day  the  insertion  in  the  record  of  some  observations  that  he  thought 
best  to  submit  to  save  the  time  of  the  conference.  I  take  it  there 
is  no  objection  at  all  to  inserting  these? 

[The  matter  submitted  by  Mr.  Masumoto,  of  Japan,  is  as  follows:] 

A  Statement  from  the  Japanese  Workers’  Delegate. 

I  do  not  propose  to  say  anything  more  about  the  reasons  why 
Japan  should  not  be  classed  with  the  special  countries.  But  I  do 
wish  to  be  permitted  to  state  some  of  the  reasons  why  the  Govern¬ 
ment  of  Japan  and  the  Government’s  delegates  have  not  acted  in  a 
perfectly  sincere  manner  on  behalf  of  Japanese  labor. 


At  first  the  Government  delegates  contended  for  a  10-hour  day, 
then  they  changed  to  a  9-hour  day,  and  later  they  argued  for  a 
9^-hour  day.  These  changes  of  opinion  have  all  been  within  a  few 
days’  time.  This  indicates  that  the  Government  delegates  have  no 
fixed  policy  nor  strong  conviction.  Yet,  they  continue  contending 
against  the  8-hour  day,  and  say  that  their  opposition  is  based 
on  a  sound  policy  of  the  Government,  which  policy  in  turn  is  based, 
they  say,  on  official  investigation  of  labor  and  industrial  conditions. 
But  if  the  opposition  of  the  Government  delegates  is  thus  based  on 
a  fixed  policy  founded  on  thorough  investigation,  why  do  they 
waver  and  change  in  their  opinion? 

There  is  another  fact  to  which  I  desire  to  direct  attention.  With¬ 
out  regard  to  the  deep  desires  of  Japanese  labor  the  Japanese  Gov¬ 
ernment  uses  article  17  of  the  police  regulations  as  a  weapon  to 
prevent  the  organization  of  trade-unions. 

For  your  information  a  translation  of  these  articles  is  here  inserted: 

POUCE  REGULATIONS— ARTICLE  17. 

No  violence  shall  be  inflicted  upon  others,  nor  threat  of  violence  made  against 
others,  nor  the  character  of  others  defamed  in  public  with  the  following  enumerated 
objects  in  view,  and  no  inducement  nor  instigation  shall  be  offered  to  others  with 
the  objects  in  view  expressed  in  clause  2: 

1.  To  make  others  join  or  prevent  others  from  joining  associations  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  cooperation  in  regard  to  conditions  and  rewards  of  labor. 

2.  To  make  employers  discharge  employees  or  refuse  applications  for  employment, 
or  to  make  employees  neglect  their  duties  or  refuse  applications  for  employment 
in  order  to  effect  a  lockout  or  a  strike. 

3.  To  compel  by  force  others  to  agree  in  regard  to  conditions  of  labor  or  rewards  ol 
labor,  or  to  inflict  violence  upon  others,  or  make  threat  of  violence  against  others  to 
compel  them  by  force  to  agree  in  regard  to  conditions  of  rent  of  land  for  agricultural 
purposes. 

All  intelligent  classes  in  Japan  admit  that  this  article  17  is 
now  one  of  the  worst  laws  of  the  country.  Even  our  progressive 
capitalists  feel  that  it  should  be  abolished  and  that  labor  should  be 
allowed  freely  to  organize.  It  is  only  the  mass  of  conservative 
capitalists  and  the  Government  that  seem  to  desire  to  retain  this 
objectionable  law,  for  they  think  that  thus  they  will  be  free  from  the 
menace  of  the  labor  movement. 

Because  labor  in  Japan  is  not  organized  into  unions,  when  it  came 
to  the  choice  of  a  delegate  to  this  conference,  there  was  no  proper 
way  to  choose  him,  and  hence  the  difficulty  and  trouble  that  arose 
in  this  honorable  body  concerning  my  credentials. 

Now,  I  thought  it  well  to  consult  my  Government  in  regard  to  the 
two  points  mentioned  above,  namely,  article  17  of  the  police 
regulations  and  the  organization  of  labor,  and  I  did  so  through  the 
medium  of  the  two  honorable  delegates  representing  the  Japanese 
Government. 

The  substance  of  the  Government’s  reply  is  as  follows: 

1.  With  reference  to  the  organization  of  labor,  investigations  con¬ 
cerning  the  formulation  of  laws  adequate  for  and  adopted  to  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  the  interests  of  workers  are  under  way. 

2.  Article  17  of  the  police  regulations  concerning  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  order  has  not  been  applied  in  the  majority  of  cases  to  strikes 
and  strikers,  but  to  all  classes  without  discrimination,  so  we  see  no 
reason  why  the  law  should  be  abolished. 

If  we  examine  this  answer,  it  is  difficult  to  find  therein  any  gen¬ 
uine  sincerity,  because  in  the  one  instance  the  Government  says 
only  that  “investigations  are  under  way,”  and  in  the  other  instance 
it  is  simply  said  that  the  law  has  not  been  applied  in  the  majority 
of  cases  to  strikes  and  strikers,  but  to  all  classes  without  discrimina¬ 
tion.  However,  this  latter  assertion  is  only  superficially  true. 

According  to  the  explanations  of  the  Government,  there  were  in 
Japan  last  year  about  400  strikes,  but  article  17  of  the  police 
regulations  was  not  applied  to  more  than  20  of  these  strikes. 
But  such  a  statement  does  not  go  to  the  root  of  the  difficulty. 
The  important  and  significant  fact  is  not  that  the  law  was 
applied  in  only  about  20  cases  out  of  400  strikes,  but  that  be¬ 
cause  of  the  existence  of  this  law  and  the  popular  interpretation  of  it, 
the  people  are  intimidated  and  fear  to  organize  into  unions  or  to 
encourage  strikers.  Thus  the  influence  of  this  law  is  very  far- 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


161 


reaching  in  its  effects.  By  way  of  illustration,  allow  me  to  point  to 
the  strike  which  occurred  in  one  of  our  munition  plants  last  summer 
during  August  and  September.  The  chief  of  the  metropolitan  police 
arbitrated  the  case  and  settled  the  difficulty,  but  after  the  case  had 
been  thus  settled  the  chief  of  police  arrested  over  20  persons  for  par¬ 
ticipation  in  the  strike.  Public  opinion  was  greatly  aroused  over  this 
affair,  but  the  reply  of  the  Government  was,  “We  have  a  law  and  the 
law  must  be  enforced.”  Moreover,  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  the  difficulty  arose  between  the  Government  on  the  one  side  and 
the  workers  on  the  other.  Arbitration  was  between  the  Government 
and  the  workers.  When  the  matter  was  settled,  therefore,  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  should  have  been  satisfied.  Nevertheless,  the  arrests  were 
ordered  as  indicated  above. 

Thus  it  would  appear  that  the  Government  of  Japan  does  not 
manifest  toward  labor  that  sympathy  and  sincerity  which  we  have  a 
right  to  expect. 

Moreover,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  delegates  themselves  from  the 
side  of  the  Government  have  not  shown  a  proper  interest  and  sym¬ 
pathy  toward  this  whole  problem  of  Japanese  labor,  for  apparently 
there  was  unnecessary  delay  in  transmitting  the  Government’s 
answer  in  regard  to  article  17  of  the  police  regulations  and  the  formu¬ 
lation  of  new  labor  laws.  Owing  to  the  unsatisfactory  character  of 
the  answer  it  is  possible,  of  course,  that  they  may  have  felt  some 
delicacy  in  making  known  the  contents. 

At  the  time  the  Government’s  telegram  was  handed  to  me,  and 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  Government  delegates,  a  personal  conference 
was  had  in  regard  to  the  questions  involved.  In  answer  to  my  anxious 
inquiries  with  reference  to  possible  reform  in  Japan  permitting  the 
proper  organization  of  labor  and  the  election  of  future  delegates  from 
Japan  to  the  conference,  the  replies  that  were  given  were  evasive 
and  unsatisfactory.  All  of  which  has  left  upon  me  the  impression 
that  in  Japan  much  progress  must  yet  be  made  along  the  line  of 
sincere  sympathy  and  cooperation  between  the  Government  and 
capital  on  the  one  hand  and  labor  on  the  other. 

In  view  of  the  facts  above  presented  for  your  consideration,  I 
wanted  to  propose  that  the  formal  protest  recorded  in  our  minutes 
with  reference  to  the  manner  of  selecting  the  Japanese  labor  dele¬ 
gate  be  not  allowed  to  stand  simply  as  a  declaration  in  our  minutes, 
but  that  in  addition  this  protest  be  forwarded  to  the  Japanese  Gov¬ 
ernment  itself;  but  I  shall  defer  such  action  until  the  proper  time. 

From  the  foregoing  statements  you  will  get  some  idea  of  how  the 
Japanese  Government  is  treating  Japanese  labor,  and  you  will  have 
noticed  that  this  treatment  is  not  sympathetic  and  sincere  and  con¬ 
sistent,  and  I  want  to  say  to  you  further  that  the  present  attitude 
of  the  Government  delegates  with  reference  to  special  treatment  is 
no  exception. 

It  is  said  that  the  Government  delegates  are  going  to  make  a  state¬ 
ment  to  the  effect  that  the  Japanese  Government  recognizes  the  right 
of  labor  to  organize,  but  I  should  like  to  call  attention  again  to  the 
fact  that  so  long  as  article  17  of  the  police  regulations  exists,  the 
practical  effects  of  which  are  to  intimidate  labor,  there  will  be  no 
benefit  to  labor  in  the  simple  theoretical  recognition  of  the  right  of 
labor  to  organize. 

We  regret  very  much  indeed  to  call  attention  to  these  domestic 
affairs,  but  finding  ourselves  in  a  most  difficult  situation  there  is 
nothing  left  but  to  swallow  our  national  pride  and  bare  the  facts. 

If  during  this  conference  we  have  seemed  to  use,  at  times,  some 
rather  harsh  language,  you  will  kindly  attribute  it  to  the  difficult 
situation  in  which  we  have  found  ourselves,  and  not  to  any  desire 
or  intention  on  our  part  to  speak  unkindly  or  discourteously. 

Uhei  Masumoto, 
Japanese  Workers’  Delegate. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now.  gentlemen.  I  venture  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  past  11  and  that  there  are  still  six 
speakers  on  the  list.  You  all  know  the  program  which  remains  to 
be  discussed.  I  think  therefore  that  I  speak  for  everybody  in 
asking  these  speakers  to  shorten  their  speeches  as  much  as  possible, 
and  I  wonder  if  it  would  not  even  be  possible  for  several  of  them 


to  combine  in  such  a  way  that  a  single  speaker  might  express  the 
opinions  of  a  group.  At  any  rate,  it  is  absolutely  indispensable  that 
each  one  shall  condense  as  much  as  possible  the  remarks  which  he 
has  to  make  upon  the  motion  before  us.  Mr.  Sampaio,  delegate 
from  Brazil,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  beg  to  move  that  the  request 
of  the  Japanese  delegate  be  granted  and  that  his  statement  be 
embodied  in  the  proceedings. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  It  has  already  been  done. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  included.  The  conference  has 
granted  the  request  which  I  put  before  it.  Consequently  it  is  useless 
to  revert  to  that. 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  I  have  decided  to  read  what  I  have  to 
say  in  order  to  sum  it  up  and  reduce  it  to  a  minimum.  I  have  a  few 
notes  here  which  are  sufficiently  complete  for  you  to  be  able  to 
understand  the  conditions  in  my  country,  Brazil. 

We  delegates  arrived  too  late  in  spite  of  the  precautions  we  took 
to  leave  Rio  de  Janeiro  on  the  Gth  of  October;  we  were  delayed  too 
long  by  unforeseen  circumstances. 

I  wish  to  explain  our  delay  so  you  may  understand  the  diffi¬ 
culty  that  we  have  in  grasping  the  situation  in  this  conference,  con¬ 
sidering  the  physical  impossibility  of  reading  the  records  of  your 
meetings,  especially  since  you  have  decided  to  work  both  morning 
and  afternoon.  Yet  we  must  make  decisions  notwithstanding  all 
that.  I  must  confess  that  we  were  astonished  at  the  amount  of  work 
turned  out  during  the  two  weeks  of  this  conference.  We  decided 
to  take  no  part  in  the  discussion  in  order  not  to  delay  your  decisions 
and  not  to  prevent  the  complete  success  of  this  conference,  which 
we  consider  to  be  the  corner  stone  of  the  Wilson  monument,  the 
League  of  Nations. 

If  my  friend  and  colleague  entered  the  discussion  yesterday,  it 
was  because  we  considered  the  subject  of  vital  importance  for  the 
countries  of  Latin  America,  and  I  must  tell  you  frankly  that  we 
would  have  voted  in  favor  of  the  Baldesi  motion  on  the  distribution 
of  raw  materials - 

The  PRESIDENT.  Tf  you  please,  sir,  let  us  keep  to  the  subject. 
It  would  seem  useless  to  explain  to  us  what  you  would  have 
done  on  the  motions  already  passed. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  But  this  is  a  delegate  who  has  just 
arrived,  and  we  must  give  him  opportunity  to  express  himself. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Sir,  if  each  delegate  who  comes  late  is  to 
explain  how  he  would  have  voted  from  the  very  beginning  of  the 
conference  we  will  have  enough  to  keep  us  busy  here  for  three  weeks. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  He  is  the  representatives  of  a  coun¬ 
try  of  considerable  importance  in  America. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  does  not  matter,  sir;  the  standing  orders 
must  be  observed.  We  are  debating  a  certain  motion  and  we  are 
not  rediscussing  the  motions  already  voted  on.  He  might  be  the 
delegate  of  the  greatest  country  in  the  world,  and  the  rule  would  be 
the  same. 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  I  think  that  we  have  already  wasted  a 
good  deal  of  time  in  this  discussion.  You  will  see  at  once  that  I 
have  not  come  here  to  justify  the  votes  which  I  have  cast  on  all  the 
questions.  You  will  see  that  at  once. 

I  must  tell  you  frankly  that  we  would  have  voted  in  favor  of  the 
Baldesi  motion  on  the  distribution  of  raw  materials  if  we  had  not 
noticed  in  his  argument  a  certain  tendency  toward  the  socialization 
of  nations  which  frightened  us.  You  see  thus  that  our  intentions 
are  in  harmony  with  your  main  ideas,  and  that  we  were  among  the 
first  to  establish  the  eight-hour  law  where  it  was  possible  to  do  so. 
Indeed,  it  was  in  the  capital  of  the  State  of  Minos  Geraes,  in  the  far 
interior  of  Brazil,  that  such  a  law  was  enacted  a  year  ago. 

That  does  not  mean — and  now  I  am  getting  back  to  the  subject — 
that  the  law  on  the  eight-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  can  be 
enforced  everywhere  in  Brazil.  Quite  the  contrary;  several  re¬ 
strictions  must  be  made,  not  only  those  provided  for  in  the  draft 
convention,  but  also  certain  others  indicated  in  the  draft  which  is 
up  for  discussion,  a  draft  which  I  should  like  to  see  more  flexible. 


146865°— 20 - 11 


162 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


so  that  we  may  not  be  forced  to  protest  against  the  conclusions  of 
this  conference. 

You  will  permit  me,  in  order  that  you  may  grasp  the  restrictions 
which  we  are  asking  for,  to  say  a  few  words  about  my  country,  the 
largest  in  Latin  America,  and  one  of  the  four  largest  countries  in 
the  world,  with,  however,  a  population  of  only  26,000,000.  Brazil 
extends  from  the  fourth  degree  of  latitude  north  down  to  the  thirty- 
fourth  degree  of  latitude  south.  That  means  that  it  is  a  country 
certain  regions  of  which  are  tropical  and  others  of  a  temperate 
climate,  and  even  a  cold  climate  in  the  south.  Thus  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  prepared  by  Mr.  Fontaine  applies  to  certain  sections  and  the 
draft  under  discussion  to  others.  But  in  order  that  you  may  grasp 
the  conditions  under  which  we  are  working  in  certain  portions  of 
Brazil,  you  will  permit  me  to  give  you  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
examples.  You  see,  then,  that  I  am  reducing  the  question  to  the 
minimum. 

You  all  know  by  name  the  River  Amazon,  whose  valley  is  the 
largest  in  the  world,  but  what  you  do  not  know  is  that  this  hydro- 
graphic  basin,  in  which  there  are  rivers  of  the  greatest  importance, 
such  as  the  Araguva,  the  Tocantin,  the  Solimaes,  the  Yavary,  the 
Madeira,  the  Purus,  the  Rio  Negro,  etc.,  possesses  extraordinary 
conditions  which  prevent  the  application  of  the  law  which  we  are 
discussing,  even  with  the  elasticity  proposed  by  the  commission. 
Thus  I  must  tell  you  that  the  difference  in  level  between  high  water 
and  low  water  amounts  to  16  or  18  meters,  i.  e.,  the  height  of  a  five- 
story  house.  You  see  then  that  it  is  possible  for  any  boat  to  go  up 
to  the  points  farthest  removed  from  the  mouth  -without  the  least 
trouble;  but  as  this  possibility  can  be  utilized  only  for  a  period  of 
about  four  months  each  year — and  I  draw  the  attention  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  to  this  part  in  particular — since  the  water  goes  down  and  in 
the  other  months  it  is  dangerous  to  navigate  even  in  small  boats, 
you  see  clearly  why  we  have  approved  the  amendment  to  the  first 
article,  subhead  (d)  of  the  draft  convention,  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  the  reporter,  in  order  that  navigation  by  inland  waterways  might 
be  placed  on  the  same  footing  as  navigation  by  sea. 

There  are  more  than  2,000  nautical  miles  to  navigate  in  uninhabited 
regions,  where  one  passes  weeks  almost  without  seeing  a  habitation. 
And  when  I  tell  you  that  it  is  in  this  region  that  rubber  is  gathered, 
that  means  that  this  industry  would  be  absolutely  annihilated, 
killed,  if  the  8-hour  day  or  even  the  48-hour  week  were  to  be  enforced 
there. 

I  do  not  wish  to  bore  you  by  telling  you  how  the  rubber  is  gathered, 
but  I  must  tell  you  that  in  that  region  they  have  to  work  slowly, 
with  an  hourly  yield  of  one-third  of  that  which  any  man  would  give 
elsewhere.  For  the  same  reason  we  have  to  take  advantage  of  the 
time  and  work  from  sunrise  to  a  half  hour  before  sunset  as  a  minimum, 
in  order  to  avoid  our  great  enemy,  the  mosquito,  which  forces  the 
workmen  to  take  shelter  in  houses  with  doors  and  windows  whose 
every  opening  is  protected  by  wire  screening.  Imagine  then  the 
cost  of  labor  carried  on  in  this  region  and  you  will  understand  why  a 
railroad  (1-meter  gauge)  scarcely  360  kilometers  in  length  (prac¬ 
tically  miles),  built  to  avoid  the  rapids  of  the  River  Madeira,  cost 
us  more  than  £8,000,000. 

It  must  be  added  that  this  region  is  the  outlet  for  a  part  of  Bolivia 
and  Peru,  and  that  in  Brazil  there  is  not  only  the  Amazon,  but  there 
are  besides  the  Paraguay,  the  Parana,  the  San  Francisco,  which  are 
all  rivers  of  a  peculiar  character,  which  very  often  prevent  work, 
so  that  unemployment  would  result  perforce  if  we  did  not  take 
advantage  of  all  the  time  possible  for  work. 

Add  to  that  all  the  arguments  presented  by  the  distinguished 
representative  from  Cuba,  since  we  too  are  producers  of  sugar  cane, 
and  the  arguments  of  the  commission  on  Japan,  India,  China,  South 
Africa,  etct,  and  you  will  understand  that  the  case  of  Brazil  is  unique 
and  so  peculiar  that  I  confess  myself  unable  to  tell  you  all  the  restric¬ 
tions  which  it  would  be  necessary  to  make,  because  we  have  not 
vet  had  enough  experience,  at  any  rate,  to  tell  you  what  is  to  be 
done.  Let  us.  the  countries  interested,  join  together,  certain  that 


you  will  find  that  our  way  of  thinking  has  very  great  breadth  and 
liberality. 

All  of  us  who  are  here  wish  to  attain  some  result  and  produce  a 
draft  which  will  protect  the  worker  and  the  employer,  both  of 
whom  are  worthy  of  our  consideration,  but  we  do  not  desire  in  any 
way  to  impede  the  freedom  of  work,  which  is  a  freedom  just  as  much 
to  be  respected  as  any  other  kind.  Certainly  it  is  not  in  a  country 
where  the  greatest  of  all  monuments  to  liberty  has  been  built  that 
anyone  has  the  right  to  put  a  check  on  the  freedom  of  work,  on  which 
the  development  of  almost  all  of  Latin  America  depends. 

We  have  a  large  country,  but  we  are  a  third-rate  power;  our  aspira¬ 
tions  are  to  rise  to  a  level  with  the  natural  conditions  which  we  possess 
and  to  become  a  first-class  power,  not  in  the  military  sense,  we  hope, 
but  in  the  economic  sense.  You  see  then  that  unemployment  with 
us  would  be  rather  the  shutting  down  of  factories  for  lack  of  labor 
and  that  our  country  is  a  regular  paradise  for  the  workingman,  since 
the  worker  of  to-day  is  the  capitalist  of  to-morrow. 

I  request  you,  Mr.  Jouhaux,  to  do  us  the  honor  to  pay  us  a  visit, 
since  you  yourself,  Puritan  as  you  are,  would  run  the  risk  of  becom¬ 
ing  a  capitalist  by  staying  there,  and  I  hope  that  you  would  not  blame 
us  for  it. 

And  you,  Mr.  Fontaine,  whose  work  at  this  conference  is  appre¬ 
ciated  by  all  of  us,  I  beg  that  you  will  restore  to  your  draft  conven¬ 
tion  article  9  thus  modified: 

The  case  of  the  countries  where  climatic  condition,  incomplete  developments,  or 
other  special  circumstances  modify  essentially  the  productiveness  of  the  workers, 
shall  be  inquired  into  by  the  special  conference  which  is  to  examine  the  problems 
of  sea  transport,  or  by  next  year’s  conference,  but  the  convention  shall  be  applied 
in  all  cases  where  the  application  is  possible. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  are  still  seven  speakers  on  the  list 
and  it  is  half  past  11.  Will  the  gentlemen  permit  me  to  remind 
them  once  more  of  the  plea  which  I  made  on  behalf  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  to  shorten  their  remarks  as  far  as  possible? 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Would  you  mind  reading 
the  names  of  the  speakers,  so  that  they  would  be  enabled  to  meet 
one  another? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  names  of  speakers  listed  are  Messrs. 
Mertens,  Oka,  Oudegeest,  Jouhaux,  Baldesi,  Muto,  and  Fausto 
Ferraz. 

Mr.  Mertens  is  recognized. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Mr.  President,  I  hesitate  to  prolong 
the  debate  further  than  was  expected,  but  I  can  not  refrain  from 
saying  a  few  words  in  support  of  what  has  been  said  by  the  Japanese 
delegate,  Mr.  Masumoto. 

I  rather  think  Mr.  Barnes  exaggerates  a  trifle  in  his  report  as  far 
as  Japan  is  concerned,  and  even  other  countries.  Mr.  Barnes  asks 
us  not  to  apply  to  Japan  the  provisions  of  the  convention  which  we 
have  already  adopted  provisionally,  because  Japan  is  a  country 
whose  industrial  development  is  still  incomplete.  Now,  the  infor¬ 
mation  which  we  have  obtained  proves  that  in  Japan  industry  is 
very  well  developed. 

There  are  three  main  industries,  metal  working,  shipbuilding, 
and  the  cotton  industry,  and  we  can  show  that  in  these  three  indus¬ 
tries  the  employers  are  organized  in  a  way  that  might  be  an  example 
for  many  European  countries.  And  in  the  face  of  that  fact  we  are 
requested  here  to-day  to  make  an  exception  in  favor  of  Japan — 
Japan,  who  during  the  war  was  enabled  to  work  and  develop  her 
industry,  while  in  Belgium,  for  instance,  instead  of  the  country’s 
being  able  to  work  and  develop,  everything  has  been  destroyed. 
We  are  to  place  Belgium,  all  of  whose  industries  have  been  destroyed, 
on  the  same  footing  as  the  other  countries,  and  we  are  asked  to  put 
on  some  other  footing  industry  like  that  of  the  Japanese,  which  has 
had  opportunity  to  develop  during  the  last  five  years.  I  must 
say  that  I  am  not  of  this  mind,  and  I  am  opposed  to  this  exceptional 
treatment,  so  far  as  Japan  is  concerned.  And  for  that  I  have  my 
reasons. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


163 


From  all  the  information  which  I  have,  I  understand  that  all 
these  industries  made  formidable  progress  between  1913  and  1917. 
The  output  of  cast  iron  has  doubled  in  Japan  in  four  years’  time. 
Take  the  textile  industries;  they  have  machinery  of  the  very  latest 
kind,  the  most  modern  machinery.  The  manufacture  of  cotton 
thread  and  cotton  goods  has  considerably  increased.  And  I  ask 
why  should  anyone  want  to  place  that  country  on  a  different  foot¬ 
ing  from  the  European  countries  just  at  the  very  time  when  that 
country  is  exploiting  its  women  and  children?  I  can  not  admit  it, 
Mr.  President. 

One  more  word.  The  Japanese  Government  delegate  has  just 
spoken  of  my  opposition  to  the  nomination  of  the  Japanese  workers  ’ 
delegate.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  did  say  while  I  was  talking  that 
we  were  not  opposed  to  the  admission  of  the  Japanese  workers’  dele¬ 
gate.  but  that  I  requested  the  conference  to  take  such  steps  that  in 
the  future  the  Japanese  Government  might  be  obliged  to  conform 
to  the  terms  of  the  peace  treaty.  I  note  that  in  the  peace  treaty 
it  is  stated  that  our  duty  in  the  conference  is  to  affirm  the  principle 
of  the  right  of  organization.  To  save  time,  I  do  not  wish  to  read 
that  here,  but  if  you  will  reread  the  articles  of  the  law  which  Mr. 
Masumoto  submitted  to  the  assembly  two  or  three  days  ago,  you 
will  see  that  this  right  to  organize  does  not  yet  exist  in  Japan,  and 
that  is  why  in  my  opinion  I  must  urge  the  conference  not  to  accept 
Mr.  Barnes’  proposition.  And  I  wish  to  declare  beforehand  that 
as  far  as  the  application  of  this  is  concerned  I  am  in  support  of  a 
motion  which  will  be  made  presently  by  Mr.  Oudegeest  in  his  own 
name  and  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

A  single  word  further.  As  regards  India,  Mr.  Barnes  said  in  his 
report  that  the  conference  recommends  that  the  Government  of 
India  be  invited  to  adopt  the  principle  of  the  48-hour  week.  That 
is  not  even  a  recommendation ;  it  is  not  a  convention ;  we  are  going 
to  invite  the  Government  of  India  to  be  kind  enough  to  apply  the 
48-hour  week  in  that  very  country  where  the  shameful  exploitation 
of  children  still  exists  everywhere.  And  I  say  that  as  a  workers’ 
delegate  I  can  not  admit  such  terms  in  a  report  which  is  presented 
to  us,  and  I  request  the  rejection  of  the  proposition  made  by  Mr. 
Barnes. 

A  final  remark.  If  so  many  exceptions  are  asked  of  us,  if  we  con¬ 
tinue  in  this  way,  and  try  to  grant  exemptions  to  all  these  different 
countries,  I  assure  you  that  we  shall  not  arrive  in  all  these  countries 
with  our  recommendations  and  conventions  until  after  the  8-hour 
day  and  the  48-hour  week  have  already  been  put  into  practice. 
[Applause. 1 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Oudegeest  is  recognized.  Will  you 
speak  in  French,  Mr.  Oudegeest? 

Mr.  OUDEGEEST  (Netherlands).  That  is  utterly  impossible  for 
me.  I  can  say  a  few  words  in  French,  but  I  can  not  use  the  language 
in  a  meeting. 

The  Interpreter.  The  interpreter  would  understand  you  well 
enough  to  be  able  to  translate  you. 

Mr.  OUDEGEEST.  No;  it  is  quite  impossible.  [Continues  in 
Dutch] :  The  question  at  present  under  discussion  is  of  the  greatest 
importance,  not  only  for  Japan  but  for  many  European  countries. 
A  large  amount  of  sickness  prevails  in  Japan  through  working 
women  and  children  over  13  hours  a  day.  Now,  that  is  not  all. 
They  are  even  allowed  to  work  them  120  hours  a  year  overtime, 
and  thus  you  have  conditions  in  Japan  which  are  absolutely  un¬ 
worthy  of  human  existence.  The  Japanese  people  should  be  pro¬ 
tected  by  us  against  their  own  Government  that  wants  to  exploit 
them.  What  conditions  do  we  see  in  Japan?  Tuberculosis  and 
general  disease  and  such  conditions  of  poverty  that  they  are  really 
demoralizing  for  the  people. 

In  the  report  presented  by  the  Japanese  delegate  it  is  stated, 
“Japan  will  endeavor  to  speed  social  development  toward  modern 
tendencies.”  But  what  does  Japan  do?  It  does  the  contrary 
by  now  opposing  principles  which  we  wish  to  apply  to  other 
countries.  It  is  a  mere  platonic  assertion  that  has  no  relation  to 
reality.  Japan,  of  late  years,  has  come  to  the  front  in  international 


politics,  but  there  is  a  proverb,  “noblese  oblige”;  he  who  plays  the 
first  violin  in  other  matters  should  try  and  play  the  first  violin  also 
in  the  questions  of  factory  legislation. 

The  proposal  for  reducing  the  working  day  to  9 A  hours  a  day  can  not 
satisfy  us.  The  proposal  for  limiting  to  15  years  the  age  of  admission 
to  industry  can  not  give  us  satisfaction.  But  we  are  willing  to 
postpone  the  application  of  the  principles  which  we  are  now  advo¬ 
cating  for  two  years  in  the  case  of  Japan,  giving  her  an  opportunity 
gradually  to  introduce  the  reforms.  I  wish  to  present  the  following 
motion ; 

This  conference  thinks  that  the  industrial  situation  of  Japan  is  such  that  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  is  necessary  for  all  the  industries,  and  that 
this  application  is  possible  after  a  waiting  period  of  two  years.  It  therefore  decides 
that  the  general  convention  shall  be  put  into  force  in  Japan  not  later  than  January 
1,  1922. 

This  delay  gives  Japan  a  chance  of  introducing  this  reform.  Japan 
is  in  a  very  favorable  situation.  She  can  get  very  cheap  raw  mate¬ 
rials  from  Korea  and  China,  and  has  a  large  population,  so  that  she 
has  an  abundance  of  cheap  labor.  Now,  if  we  allow  Japan  to  develop 
at  present  by  bestowing  special  favors  upon  her,  of  which  she  is  not  in 
need,  then  we  shall  endanger  European  countries,  because  our  workers 
will  have  to  compete  with  conditions  which  are  unworthy  of  human 
existence. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman. 
My  point  of  order  is  this:  You  will  be  aware,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I 
have  put  up  a  motion  asking  only  that  modifications  should  be 
made  in  respect  to  Japan  and  the  other  countries.  There  is  nothing 
in  my  motion  respecting  the  character  of  the  modification.  Now, 
I  understand  that  the  motion  just  put  forward  admits  that  modifica¬ 
tions  may  be  made,  but  suggests  another  kind  of  modification. 
Might  I  suggest  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  time  for  that  is  when 
we  come  to  discuss  the  actual  modification? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barnes  is  right.  The  debate  must  bear 
first  upon  the  general  application  of  this  principle  and  then  on  the 
application  of  the  principle  to  the  different  countries.  I  shall 
recognize  Mr.  Jouhaux  to  speak  on  the  question  of  the  general 
principle. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  wish  to  take  the  attention 
of  the  conference  very  long.  Considering  that  the  question  of 
Japan  has  already  been  solved  in  the  minds  of  many  delegates,  I 
wish  simply  to  recall  in  a  few  words  the  general  ideas  presented  at 
the  Paris  conference  when  we  discussed  the  agenda  now  under  dis¬ 
cussion  here.  I  would  also  recall  the  preamble  of  the  international 
labor  charter  and  point  out  some  of  its  general  implications. 

The  preamble  of  the  international  labor  charter  declares  that  the 
interests  of  the  workers  are  identical  the  world  over,  and  that  we 
must  endeavor  to  enact  uniform  labor  legislation  in  all  countries. 
Logically  and  normally  that  should  he  the  purpose  of  the  conference 
now  in  progress.  Now,  on  the  very  first  question,  which  is  the  most 
important  of  all  those  on  the  agenda,  we  are  asked  to  accord  special 
treatment  to  a  country  whose  industrial  development  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  third  rate,  if  we  compare  it  with  the  industrial  develop¬ 
ment  of  a  country  like  France.  If  on  the  other  hand  we  bear  in 
mind  the  situation  of  each  of  these  countries  during  the  war,  we 
must  consider  the  fact  that  Japan  was  able  to  develop  her  in¬ 
dustry,  to  provide  new  trade  outlets,  to  create  an  era  of  intense 
production,  while  France  has  seen  her  territory  devastated,  her 
industrial  development  arrested,  and  her  trade  outlets  neutralized. 
We  have  not  requested  special  treatment  for  our  country,  we  con¬ 
sidered  that  the  general  aim  of  the  international  conference  at 
Washington  was  to  be  realized,  and  that  all  our  efforts  and  good  will 
were  to  converge  toward  that  aim,  that  it  was  not  necessary  that  any 
country,  except  for  extraordinarily  unusual  circumstances,  should 
be  classed  as  beyond  the  reach  of  a  strict  application  of  the  con¬ 
ventions  adopted  by  the  conference.  That  is  the  reason  why  we 
agreed  that  the  treatment  of  certain  countries  should  be  looked 
into  by  a  special  commission;  although  in  the  meantime  we  hold 


164 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


that  havin  railed  the  nations  to  the  defense  of  liberty  and  higher 
civilization,  we  have  no  right  to  let  them  crouch  under  •  over  of  a 
lower  state  of  civilization.  In  spite  of  these  humane  sentiments 
which  we  advance,  we  accepted  the  proposition  to  refer  to  a  special 
commission  the  examination  of  certain  countries;  but  it  did  not 
occur  to  the  workers’  delegates  that  Japan  could  be  considered  as 
a  country  presenting  such  special  conditions  that  important  excep¬ 
tions  should  be  accorded  her  with  regard  to  the  application  of  the 
eight-hour  day. 

I  wish  to  recall  to  you  in  a  few  words  the  situation  previous  to 
1914.  In  all  the  European  countries  at  that  time  there  were  com¬ 
plaints  of  Japanese  competition,  in  all  the  European  countries  there 
were  protests  against  the  long  working  day  and  the  low  wages  im¬ 
posed  on  Japanese  workers.  They  pleaded  this  peculiar  situation 
in  Japan  in  order  to  refuse  workers  their  demands.  We  might  have 
brought  whole  books  here,  English,  German,  French,  Italian,  books 
of  all  nations,  newspapers  of  all  nations,  bearing  on  this  question 
and  using  the  language  which  I  have  just  quoted.  Does  the  situa¬ 
tion  which  we  were  criticizing  yesterday  no  longer  exist  to-day? 
In  this  International  Labor  Conference  are  we  going  to  forget  the 
point  of  view  which  we  adopted,  to  grant  concessions,  with  the 
intention  perhaps  of  pleading  the  particular  case  of  Japan  in  order 
not  to  apply  strictly  in  our  own  countries  the  conditions  of  the  con¬ 
vention  on  which  we  have  voted? 

I  say  that  if  that  is  the  hidden  desire  of  certain  individuals,  these 
individuals  must  be  immediately  disabused  of  such  an  idea.  It 
will  not  be  permissible  to-morrow  to  find  ourselves  in  a  position 
where  we  are  unable  to  apply  the  whole  convention  because  such 
and  such  an  important  exception  may  have  been  granted  to  such  and 
such  a  country. 

I  must  particularly  draw  the  attention  of  the  employers’  delegates 
of  the  European  countries  to  the  fact  that  this  will  be  an  agreement 
to  give  a  country  which  has  enjoyed  an  era  of  a  more  rapid  industrial 
development  than  their  own  the  opportunity  of  starting  a  competi¬ 
tive  regime  against  which  they  can  do  nothing,  and  all  that  without 
profit  to  themselves. 

Consequently,  in  view  of  this  general  situation,  I  ask  that  the 
proposition  submitted  by  Mr.  Oudegeest  be  given  consideration, 
and  even  if  it  be  granted  that  peculiar  conditions  exist,  outside  of 
certain  industries,  that  it  may  yet  not  be  possible  to  say  that  Japan 
is  an  industrially  backward  country  and  by  reason  of  that  fact  to 
grant  her  special  treatment. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  book  has  been  circulated  here  which  bears 
on  the  industrial  development  of  Japan.  I  should  like  to  have 
this  book  and  lay  it  before  the  delegates  at  the  conference.  Then 
they  would  understand  the  development  of  Japan  in  industrial 
technique.  They  would  understand  the  perfect  practicability  of 
the  application  of  the  eight-hour  day  in  Japan.  They  would  under¬ 
stand  that  Japan  is  a  country  having  a  considerable  output,  and 
that  consequently  if  we  grant  her  to-day  such  special  treatment, 
such  leniency  will  flood — let  us  not  be  afraid  to  call  things  by  their 
right  name — the  European  market  with  her  products,  and  it  will 
thus  check  to  a  large  extent  the  industrial  progress  of  other  countries. 
It  is  to  this  particular  point,  aside  from  all  diplomatic  considerations 
or  questions  of  the  agenda,  that  I  would  draw  the  attention  of  the 
conference  and  ask  it  to  give  its  judgment  in  accordance  with  the 
exact  situation  of  Japan  and  not  according  to  this,  that,  or  the  other 
consideration  of  a  diplomatic  or  formal  nature. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Baldesi  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  The  conference 
need  not  be  surprised  if  a  great  many  workingmen’s  dele¬ 
gates  wish  to  speak  on  this  question  of  Japan.  Representing  the 
Italian  workingmen,  I  wish  to  express  complete  agreement 
with  the  protest  made  hy  the  Japanese  workingmen’s  delegate. 
Perhaps  the  defects  in  Japanese  industrial  development  which  have 
been  referred  to  may  depend  mainly  on  the  fact  that  hitherto 
Japanese  workmen  have  not  been  allowed  to  have  any  organization 
in  their  country.  They  are  not  allowed  to  organize,  and  this  con¬ 


ference  offers  them  the  opportunity  of  bringing  forward  their  protests 
and  remarks  for  the  first  time. 

Japan’s  position  is  a  curious  one.  She  takes  her  place  in  the  world 
as  a  first-class  power.  She  takes  her  place  in  the  world  as  a  first-class 
power  in  every  respect:  and  yet  she  comes  to  this  international 
conference  to  plead  her  condition  of  inferiority. 

I  wish  to  make  a  point  which  has  not  been  emphasized  by  other 
speakers.  Is  Japan  an  importing  or  an  exporting  country?  Japan 
is  an  exporting  country.  Efforts  have  been  made  by  Japan  to  sell 
ships  at  a  price  which  cuts  the  cost  prod'  .ction  in  other  countries. 
In  the  case  of  the  silk  industry,  the  wages  of  the  worker  in  other 
countries  are  kept  down  precisely  because  of  the  competition  that 
Japan  is  in  a  position  to  maintain  in  the  silk  exporting  industry. 

I  may  add  a  few  words  on  other  countries  which  are  asking  for 
exclusion  from  the  8-hour  law.  Among  these  are  Greece  and  Rou- 
mania,  and  I  note  that  the  exclusions  asked  for  are  precisely  in  those 
industries  in  which  the  physical  effort  of  the  workers  is  most  severe 
and  in  which  it  is  most  necessary  that  they  should  have  proper 
hours  of  rest. 

I  could  accept  the  proposal  contained  in  the  motion  by  Mr.  Oude¬ 
geest  as  a  ‘‘pis-aller” — a  makeshift.  But  this  measure  asks  for  an 
extension  of  two  years  in  the  application  of  the  8-hour  law  to  Japan. 
Now,  that  would  mean  that  the  practical  working  of  the  law  would 
not  be  enforced  before  some  three  and  one-half  years  had  elapsed. 
In  the  present  conditions  of  development,  can  it  be  supposed  that 
in  three  and  one-half  years’  time  matters  would  not  have  progressed 
in  the  great  industrial  countries,  and  that  the  labor  organizations 
themselves  will  not  have  changed  the  position  of  affairs,  as  it  stands 
now. 

By  granting  two  years’  extension  to  Japan,  Japan  will  he  placed 
in  a  particularly  privileged  position.  What  has  been  said  here  is 
perfectly  true,  that  Japan  is  in  a  very  special  situation,  hut  that 
special  situation  is  not  one  of  inferiority  to  Europe,  but  rather  one 
of  superiority.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  for  five  years  past 
Europe  has  been  in  the  throes  of  a  terrific  war.  All  her  industrial 
organization  has  been  perturbed  and  upset  and  in  a  great  part  her 
wealth  has  been  destroyed.  Capital  has  emigrated  from  Europe  and 
has  immigrated  into  Japan. 

I  will  conclude  my  remarks  by  supporting  the  observation  that 
was  made  by  Mr.  Jouhaux.  It  is  quite  true  that  there  may  be  certain 
countries  here  which  support  the  claims  of  the  Japanese  Govern¬ 
ment  delegates  and  believe  that  in  so  supporting  them  they  are 
serving  their  own  interests.  It  may  be  that  certain  interests  will 
be  assisted  by  retarding  the  application  of  the  8-hour  law  in  Japan 
for  a  period  of  five  years,  as  has  been  asked,  but  let  the  people  here 
remember  that  in  supporting  certain  interests  they  are  going  against 
the  supreme  rights  of  humanity  in  this  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Oka  is  recognized. 

Mr.  OKA  (Japan).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  beg  to  make  a  few  remarks 
upon  the  discussion  of  our  esteemed  colleagues,  Mr.  Mertens,  Mr. 
Oudegeest,  Mr.  Jouhaux,  and  Mr.  Baldesi. 

With  regard  to  what  Mr.  Mertens,  from  Belgium,  has  stated,  let 
me  call  your  attention  to  this:  That  it  is  entirely  wrong  to  judge  the 
entire  industrial  situation  by  the  facts  which  apply  to  only  a  part 
of  industry.  'I  regret  to  note  that  Mr.  Mertens  has  been  misled  by 
considering  only  the  advanced  phases  of  Japanese  industry. 

He  has  referred  to  the  remarkable  industrial  situation  in  Japan 
brought  about  by  the  war.  But  let  me  remind  you  that  war  condi¬ 
tions  are  only  abnormal  and  not  permanent.  War  conditions  are 
the  wrong  ground  on  which  to  base  any  judgment  comparing  Japan 
with  Europe.  The  fact  that  the  industry  in  Japan  is  on  a  very 
small  scale  will  become  evident  if  you  will  glance  at  the  report  of 
the  commission  on  special  countries.  Also,  the  fact  that  the  organi¬ 
zation  of  industry  and  the  efficiency  of  labor  are  less  advanced  than 
in  Europe  can  not  be  denied.  You  will  please  remember  that  the 
provisions  applying  to  Japan  have  been  proposed  only  as  temporary 
measures.  It  is  not  because  Japan  wants  special  treatment  as  such, 
but  because  of  the  present  necessity  that  Japan  claims  this  treatment. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


165 


With  regard  to  the  proposition  of  our  colleague,  Mr.  Oudegeest, 
from  Holland,  I  may  make  a  few  remarks.  Anyone  versed  in  the 
history  of  the  development  of  factory  legislation  knows  that  the 
proposition  proposed  by  Mr.  Oudegeest  is  an  entirely  impracticable 
one.  The  progress  of  labor  must  parallel  the  development  of  indus¬ 
try  in  such  countries.  It  is  a  fact  that  we  have  made  very  great 
progress,  but  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  make  a  very  sudden 
jump,  the  jump  over  the  distance  which  you  have  advanced  in  these 
40  or  50  years.  We  may  take  such  a  step  but  no  such  precipitate 
action  has  ever  met  with  success. 

Next,  I  want  to  answer  our  friend  and  colleague,  Mr.  Jouhaux. 
Mr.  Jouhaux  has  pointed  to  the  clause  of  the  peace  treaty.  I  am  in 
perfect  agreement  with  Mr.  Jouhaux  that  the  interest  of  labor  should 
be  uniform  throughout  the  world.  But  Mr.  Jouhaux  must  recall  at 
the  same  time  that  the  peace  treaty  provides  that  there  should  be 
special  considerations  given  to  the  countries  where  industrial 
conditions  are  essentially  different.  The  peace  treaty  never  did 
mean  to  give  uniform  treatment  to  all  the  countries  concerned.  It 
did  not  intend  to  place  all  countries  in  the  same  line  at  all. 
There  are  many  special  clauses  on  the  special  treatment  of 
countries  with  special  conditions.  I  am  sure  that  all  our  col¬ 
leagues  will  agree  in  the  spirit  of  the  peace  treaty. 

And  then,  in  answer  to  Mr.  Baldesi,  let  me  simply  remind  him  of 
the  fact  that  in  Japan  we  have  not  had  such  a  long  history  of  labor 
legislation  as  in  Italy.  It  is  indeed  erroneous  to  compare  the  in¬ 
dustrial  development  of  Italy  with  that  of  Japan  to-day. 

Therefore,  I  would  like  all  the  gentlemen  here  to  pass  the  propo¬ 
sition  made  by  the  commission  on  special  countries.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barnes,  the  reporter,  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman  and  fellow  dele¬ 
gates:  Might  I  just  bring  the  conference  back  to  the  simple  issue 
that  is  before  you?  A  great  deal  has  been  said  this  morning  as  to 
the  right  of  the  Japanese  workmen  to  organize  being  denied  them. 
That  has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  proposition  now  before  the 
meeting.  I  have  in  my  hand  a  statement  which  has  already 
been  read  by  the  Government  delegate  of  Japan  this  morn¬ 
ing,  which  directly  challenges  that  statement,  and  which  says 
that  there  is  no  law  in  Japan  at  present  to  prevent  organization, 
and,  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  Japanese  Government,  he  goes  further 
and  says  that  that  Government  is  now  about  to  introduce  legislation 
not  only  admitting  but  encouraging  organization  of  labor.  I  merely 
make  mention  of  that  as  an  illustration  of  the  many  statements  that 
have  been  made  this  morning,  perhaps  not  intended  to  prejudice 
the  meeting,  but  which  are  calculated  to  prejudice  the  meeting. 

Let  me  mention  another  before  going  on.  I  think  it  was  Mr. 
Mertens,  I  am  not  sure,  but  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Mertens,  who  said 
that  Japan  was  now  using  machinery  exactly  the  same  as  the  ma¬ 
chinery  in  Europe,  and  that  therefore  Japan  ought  to  be  brought 
under  the  operation  of  the  8-hour  law  the  same  as  Europe.  There 
again  it  is  a  matter  that  we  have  gone  into  very  carefully  at  the 
special  commission,  and  might  I  say  to  Mr.  Mertens  that  that  state¬ 
ment  is  absolutely  contrary  to  the  facts,  the  real  facts,  because  it  is 
a  physical  impossibility  for  Japan  to  get  machinery  into  that  country 
to  carry  out  the  8-hour  law  at  the  same  time  as  other  countries,  it 
is  not  a  matter  of  argument;  it  is  not  a  matter  of  theory.  It  is  a 
simple  matter  of  fact. 

The  Japanese  Government  has  agreed  to  apply  the  Bern  Con¬ 
vention.  Now,  the  Bern  Convention  stipulates  for  7  hours  rest  at 
night  for  women.  That  reduces  the  working  time  of  the  Japanese 
factories  from  22  hours,  which  they  at  present  work,  down  to  17 
as  a  maximum.  Even  if  they  work  all  the  time  from  5  o’clock  in 
the  morning  until  10  o’clock  at  night,  which  they  can  not  do,  but 
even  if  they  did  that  reduces  their  possible  time  from  22  to  17. 

The  probability  is  that  whatever  we  may  do  here  in  regard  to  the 
application  of  the  8-bour  law,  in  the  cotton  factories  which  use  this 
machinery  the  hours  of  work  will  be  8  hours,  in  order  to  work  the 
machinery  to  the  full  limit  of  17;  but,  even  then,  in  order  to  main¬ 
tain  the  production  at  the  present  level  they  have  got  to  import 


into  Japan  no  less  than  one  and  a  half  million  spindles.  That  one 
million  and  a  half  of  spindles  is  now  on  order  in  Great  Britain, 
and  in  America  and,  I  am  told,  can  not  be  produced  and  delivered 
in  Japan  within  less  than  three  years.  That  is  another  important 
thought  which  it  was  necessary  to  make  clear.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
argument  and  not  a  matter  of  theory,  but  a  simple  matter  of  fact, 
which  makes  it  a  physical  impossibility  for  J  apan  to  put  the  hours 
into  operation  inside  of  that  time. 

I  am  not  going  to  mention  any  more  of  the  arguments  or  state¬ 
ments  that  have  been  made  this  morning.  I  simply  want  to  make 
an  appeal  to  this  meeting  to  regard  this  matter,  not  as  a  matter  to  be 
decided  by  rhetoric  but  to  be  decided  by  practical  statesmanship. 
[Applause.] 

What  is  the  position?  We  have  heard  a  great  deal  about  the  evils 
of  factory  life  in  Japan.  I  think  Mr.  Jouhaux  [Mr.  Oudegeest] 
said  something  about  the  sickness  consequent  upon  that  evil 
condition  of  things  in  Japan.  Gentlemen,  can  any  of  us 
afford  to  make  statements  of  that  kind  without  having  the 
stone  thrown  at  us  by  Japan?  Going  back  in  our  own  recol¬ 
lections  for  the  last — shall  I  say  two  generations — might  I  indulge 
in  a  little  personal  reminiscence?  I  myself  worked  in  a  jute 
factory  in  Great  Britain  50  years  ago,  before  I  had  attained  the 
age  of  11  years,  59 1  hours  per  week.  For  over  a  generation  now  in 
Great  Britain,  as  a  matter  of  fact  from  the  year  1802,  we  in  Great 
Britain  have  been  passing  factory  acts,  one  after  the  other,  each  of 
them  an  improvement  upon  its  predecessor,  and  we  have  got  now 
to  a  certain  stage  of  industrial  development  and  a  certain  stage  of 
civilization.  Do  you  want  to  ask  Japan,  which  is  but  30  to  40  years 
old  in  industry,  to  do  what  we  have  done,  and  what  we  have  only 
been  able  to  do  as  the  result  of  117  years’  experiment  and  trial  and 
agitation?  Well,  I  can  only  say  if  you  do,  you  are  putting  upon 
Japan  an  impossible  proposition. 

We  have  met  in  the  special  commission  and  we  have  regarded  this 
matter  from  the  viewpoint  of  making  treaties  with  Japan  and  the 
other  countries  concerned,  and  here  let  me  say  that  in  my  judgment 
Mr.  Oka  and  his  colleague  have  met  us  fairly.  The  employers’ 
delegates  have  also  been  induced  to  go  a  long  way  in  the  direction 
of  all  those  who  have  spoken  this  morning,  and  what  we  have  done 
is  really  to  make  treaties  with  the  Governments,  including  Japan. 
We  have  made  these  bargains,  and  I  think  if  they  are  indorsed  we 
may  go  away  with  the  perfect  understanding  that  these  bargains 
will  be  carried  out.  They  have  all  the  force  of  treaties.  But  what 
happens  if  you  turn  them  down?  Can  you  impose  your  will  upon 
Japan?  Can  you  impose  your  will  upon  India?  Not  at  all.  If  you 
turn  these  treaties  down,  and  you  do  not  put  in  their  place  something 
else  to  which  you  as  a  full  conference  might  induce  these  Govern¬ 
ments  to  agree,  then  those  Government  delegates  go  back  relieved 
of  the  moral  obligation.  At  present  they  are  under  a  moral  obligation 
to  put  into  effect  these  bargains  that  we  have  made  with  them. 

I  ask  you,  then,  as  my  last  word,  to  treat  these  bargains  a  good  deal 
more — shall  I  say — in  a  judicial  line  than  has  been  exhibited  this 
morning;  to  regard  them  as  something  going  a  long  way  in  your  direc¬ 
tion,  and  as  embodying  the  hope  and  belief  that  Japan  and  the 
other  countries  concerned,  having  gone  thus  far,  will  in  the  near 
future  go  a  good  deal  further  and  bring  their  workmen  up  to  the  high 
standard  of  workmen  in  Europe  and  America 

I  hope  that  you  will  pass  the  resolution,  asking  only,  as  it  does,  for 
modifications,  not  saying  anything  about  what  these  modifications 
should  be.  I  hope  that  you  wfill  pass  that  resolution  and  discuss  the 
modifications  later  on.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Schindler  is  recognized. 

Mr.  SCHINDLER  (Switzerland).  Mr.  President,  I  propose  a 
closure,  as  all  the  questions  for  and  against  have  been  adequately 
discussed. 

Mr.  OUDEGEEST  (Netherlands).  Why  no,  Mr.  Barnes  spoke 
twice,  contrary  to  the  standing  orders. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  reporter  alone  has  the  right  to  speak 
twice  by  virtue  of  the  standing  orders. 


166 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Is  it  allowable  to  ask  a  question  on 
the  method  of  proceeding  indicated  by  Mr.  Barnes?  Is  it  allowable 
to  ask  how  we  are  going  to  vote? 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  must  first  consider  the  closure. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Pardon  me,  after  voting  for  closure, 
we  have  no  longer  a  right  to  ask  questions.  If  we  have  no  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  informing  ourselves  on  the  manner  of  taking  a  vote,  we  shall 
not  know  how  to  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes,  you  will  have  it. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  We  are  facing  a  perfectly  strange 
method  of  proceeding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  understood. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Well,  if  you  are  as  unacquainted  with 
this  procedure  as  we  are,  all  the  more  reason  for  explanations. 

The  PRESIDENT.  But  the  standing  orders  are  there;  we  must 
follow  them.  We  must  first  close  the  discussion.  As  soon  as  we 
have  voted  on  the  motion  for  closure  you  shall  have  the  floor,  Mr. 
Jouhaux,  to  ask  a  question  on  the  vote  which  is  to  be  taken.  At  the 
present  time  the  only  motion  before  the  meeting  is  the  motion  for 
closure. 

Those  in  favor  of  adopting  the  motion  on  closure,  please  raise  the 
hand. 

A  Brazilian  Delegate.  Mr.  President,  I  asked  to  be  recog¬ 
nized. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  voting  has  begun,  sir. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  to  closure,  please  raise  the  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  result  of  the  voting  .gives  74  for  closure  and  16  against.  There¬ 
fore  the  closure  is  ruled. 

We  have  before  us  a  motion  by  Mr.  Barnes;  but  on  this  motion, 
according  to  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Jouhaux,  on  the  principle  of  this 
motion,  everybody  is  agreed. 

Mr.  Barnes’s  motion  is  worded  as  follows: 

That  modifications  of  the  main  convention  respecting  the  application  of  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  to  the  countries  named  in  the  report  of 
the  special  commission  are  justified. 

I  believe  that  everybody  is  agreed  on  that  point  of  view,  since  Mr. 
Jouhaux  asked  for  a  shorter  period  before  enforcement;  Mr.  Barnes 
motion  does  not  provide  for  any  extension  of  time  at  all. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux  is  recognized  to  question  my 
characterization  of  the  situation. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  No,  it  is  not  to  question  your  charac¬ 
terization,  Mr.  President,  it  is  to  ask  Mr.  Barnes  for  an  explanation. 

The  explanation  that  I  desire  to  have  is  this:  After  voting  on  Mr. 
Barnes  motion,  can  our  amendment  come  up  for  discussion  or  for 
voting? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Yes. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  It  was  merely  an  explanation  that  I 
wanted,  and  it  is  important  because  it  determines  our  vote. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  add 
anything  to  what  the  chairman  has  said.  I  have  tried  several  times 
to  make  it  quite  clear  that  my  motion  simply  affirms  the  principle 
that  modifications  are  justified .  What  those  modifications  may  be  can 
be  discussed  later;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  one  of  the  modifications 
you  will  find  in  the  printed  matter  which  has  been  in  your  hands 
for  three  days.  The  latter  has  to  do  with  the  limit  of  time.  If  I 
were  in  the  chair  I  would  say  that  when  that  was  reached,  that 
was  the  time  for  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  amendment  to  come  on. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Yes;  it  was  a  reply  without  being  a 
direct  answer. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  means  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes 
applies  to  all  countries  indiscriminately,  while  your  motion,  Mr. 
Jouhaux,  signed  by  you  and  your  colleagues,  applies  to  Japan  ex¬ 
clusively.  Consequently,  as  you  have  no  objection  to  the  motion 
as  a  whole,  I  think  we  can  consider  the  motion  ot  Mr.  Barnes  adopted. 


I  will  call  for  a  vote  in  order  to  be  perfectly  certain,  and  I  request  alls 
those  in  favor  of  its  adoption  to  raise  the  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed,  please  raise  the  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  carried  by  58  votes  against  7.  Now  we  shall  take  up 
the  details  as  they  affect  the  different  countries.  We  shall  begin 
with  Japan.  Now  is  the  time  for  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion: 

The  conference  being  of  opinion  that  the  industrial  condition  of  Japan  is  such  as  to 
require  the  application  of  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  to  all  industries  and 
that  such  application  is  possible  within  two  years,  decides  that  the  general  convention 
shall  come  into  force  in  Japan  not  later  than  the  1st  of  January,  1922. 

Mr.  BARNES.  Might  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman? 
I  am  sorry  that  I  have  not  made  my  position  clear  to  the  meeting. 
The  special  commission’s  report  has  been  in  print,  I  think,  three 
days.  There  are  amendments  both  as  to  the  time  and  as  to  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  under  which  we  propose  that  the  8-hour  day  or  a  shorter- 
hour  day  should  be  brought  into  operation.  One  of  the  amend¬ 
ments,  or,  at  least,  one  of  the  propositions  that  we  make'is  as  to  the 
time  within  which  we  should  ask  the  Japanese  Government  to 
apply  the  8-hour  day.  As  it  happens,  that  comes  at  the  end  of  our 
proposition,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  proper  thing  to  do  would 
be  to  take  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  when  we  reach  that  particular 
proposition  which  I  should  say  as  a  matter  of  form  is  now  before  the 
meeting. 

The  PRESIDENT.  You  have  heard  the  explanation  made  by 
the  reporter,  and  you  have  heard  especially  the  discussion  which 
took  place;  we  now  have  to  vote  on  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion,  and  this 
vote  has  been  made  the  subject  of  a  request  for  a  record  vote,  a  request 
presented  by  26  members,  whose  signatures  are  here.  According 
to  the  standing  orders  this  request  must  be  granted.  Before  proceed¬ 
ing  to  a  vote  the  secretary  will  read  once  more  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion: 

[The  clerk  read  the  following  motion:] 

The  conference  being  of  opinion  that  the  industrial  condition  of  Japan  is  such  as  to 
require  the  application  of  the  S-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  to  all  industries  and 
that  such  application  is  possible  within  two  years,  decides  that  the  general  convention 
shall  come  into  force  in  Japan  not  later  than  the  1st  of  January,  1922. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Jouhaux’s 
motion  are  requested  to  say  “yes,”  those  against  Mr.  Jouhaux’s 
motion  to  say  “no.” 

[Roll  call:] 

Yes— 42. 

Argentina: 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Canada: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Czech  o-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 

Guatemala: 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 


Japan: 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 
Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowiez. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Spain: 

Viscount  dc  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 
Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


167 


NO— 45 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasl. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 
Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R  Parsons. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H  Vestesen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 
France: 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Great  Britain: 

Rt.  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzdne. 


India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Shichiro  Muto. 

Netherlands: 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

*  Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacdrda. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenaeht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Gentlemen,  will  you  please  give  me  your 
attention  a  moment.  Mr.  Fontaine  has  offered  the  following  motion: 

The  first  International  Labor  Conference,  on  the  occasion  of  America’s  Thanks¬ 
giving  holiday,  takes  this  opportunity  of  uniting  with  the  great  people  of  this  land 
in  an  expression  of  thanksgiving  and  praise.  At  the  same  time  the  representatives 
of  the  nations  of  the  world  here  assembled  desire  to  convey  to  the  United  States  a 
message  of  appreciation  and  esteem  from  our  respective  peoples  and  to  bespeak  for  the 
future  a  perpetuation  of  the  cordial  relationship  now  existing  between  them  and  the 
great  nation  whose  guests  they  are  on  this  occasion. 

This  conference  fervently  expresses  the  hope  that  this  and  future  meetings  may  be¬ 
come  an  added  instrumentality  to  the  advancement  of  mankind  and  the  permanent 
establishment  of  peace  and  good  will  upon  earth. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Is  the  motion  seconded? 

Mr.  ROBERTSON  (Canada).  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  seconding 
Mr.  Fontaine’s  motion.  Probably  no  nation  represented  at  this  con¬ 
ference  is  more  intimately  acquainted  with  or  has  greater  respect  for 
the  United  States  of  America  than  has  the  country  from  which  I  come; 
and  I  therefore  take  pleasure  in  seconding  the  motion  offered  by  Mr. 
Fontaine. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Those  in  favor  of  the  motion,  please  signify 
by  rising. 

[All  the  delegates  rise.] 

I  think  we  can  say  that  the  motion  is  unanimously  carried. 
[Applause.] 

Now,  here  is  the  result  of  the  vote  which  we  took  a  few  moments 


ago. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  would  you  allow  me 
one  moment  to  suggest  that  one  word  in  that  resolution  is  hardly  cor¬ 
rect,  where  we  state  that  it  is  America’s  holiday.  It  should  be  the 
United  States,  because  the  United  States  is  only  a  part  of  America. 
Otherwise  I  am  most  heartily  in  favor  of  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  motion  having  been  disposed  of,  and  as 
the  discussion  has  been  sufficiently  prolonged,  may  we  consider  the 
draft  convention  dealing  with  Japan  as  adopted?  Those  in  favor  of 
adopting  it,  please  raise  the  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed,  please  raise  the  hand. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  carried  by  57  votes  against  4. 

Mr.  FERRAZ  (Brazil).  The  workers  of  Brazil  send  friendly  greet¬ 
ings  by  me  to  all  the  workers  here  represented ;  they  say  to  them  that 


the  same  ideals  of  justice  and  the  same  sentiments  of  humanity  are 
to  be  found  in  their  hearts  with  regard  to  universal  civilization. 

The  eight-hour  day  is  already  officially  achieved  in  Brazil  The 
workers  of  my  country  deeply  regret  that  the  absence  of  the  employ¬ 
ers’  delegate  deprives  me  of  the  privilege  of  voting  as  a  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  workers  and  of  protesting  on  their  behalf  against  the 
exception  which  is  going  to  be  made  for  our  country. 

It  is  precisely  in  warm  climates  that  the  worker  needs  to  rest  in 
order  to  recuperate  his  strength  and  to  find  the  necessary  leisure  for 
education  and  culture.  Sufficient  time  must  be  given  him  if  he 
wishes  to  attend  schools  for  adults,  technical  schools,  or  other  pro¬ 
fessional  institutions. 

It  is  a  commonplace  of  social  science  that  a  man  who  is  technically 
well  equipped  constitutes  a  valuable  economic  asset,  and  this  is 
particularly  true  with  regard  to  young  countries  like  ours. 

For  all  these  reasons  the  workers  of  Brazil  think  it  their  duty  to 
protest  against  the  exception  which  is  made  for  them,  when  the 
eight-hour  day  is  already  an  accomplished  fact  in  their  country. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now  we  come  to  India.  Gentlemen,  please 
be  patient  a  few  minutes  longer,  and  we  shall  get  through  this 
morning. 

Mr.  JOSHI  (India).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  know  whether 
there  is  any  resolution  before  the  conference  about  India,  because 
the  honorable  Mr.  Barnes  moved  a  motion  simply  adopting  the 
principle  that  modifications  should  be  applied  to  Japan,  India, 
and  several  other  countries.  There  is  no  other  motion  before  this 
conference.  I  should  therefore  like  to  know  what  we  are  discussing 
now.  If  we  are  discussing  the  detailed  propositions  about  India  I 
should  like  to  make  a  few  remarks. 

The  PRESIDENT  (interrupting  Mr.  Joshi).  If  you  are  going  to 
make  a  speech,  I  think  it  would  be  advisable  to  wait,  as  it  is  impor¬ 
tant  to  adjourn  the  meeting,  since  nobody  will  listen  to  your  remarks, 
and  besides  we  shall  not  have  a  sufficient  number  of  votes  for  a 
quorum. 

To-morrow  I  propose  that  we  begin  a  little  earlier.  We  did  not 
begin  to-day  until  20  minutes  past  10.  If  we  want  to  finish,  we 
positively  must  be  able  to  come  to  order  at  10  o’clock  sharp. 

The  meeting  stands  adjourned  to  Friday,  November  28,  1919,  at 
10  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

(Whereupon  at  1.40  p.  m.  an  adjournment  was  taken  to  Friday, 
November  28,  1919,  at  10  a.  m.) 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr.  Michel 
Ldvie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Mr.  Fausto  Ferraz. 

Dr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 
Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr,  F.  N.  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Fransisco  Carrera  Justiz. 


Czeeho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  A.  Z.  Kriz  (substitute  for  Mr.  F. 

Hodaczl. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  Bertel  Dahlgaard  (substitute  for 
Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes). 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

France' 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Boulin  (substitute  for  Mr.  Max 
Lazard). 

Mr.  Loins  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 


168 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramin  Bengoecha. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Carbini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baidesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eildchi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 


Netherlands: 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 

N  orway : 

Judge  John  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  .or  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzalez  Bazo. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowiez. 


Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Laeerda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Mr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 


Spain: 

Mr.  J.  Gascon  (substitute  for  VI* 
count  de  Eza). 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 

Sweden: 

Dr.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler.  • 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


TWENTY-THIRD  SESSION— FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER  28,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  10.10  o’clock  a.  m.,  Right  Hon. 
G.  N.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  vice  president  of  the  conference, 
presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  meeting  is  called  to  order.  The  secre¬ 
tary  will  make  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Owing  to  the  very  close  char¬ 
acter  of  the  vote  that  was  taken  yesterday  on  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion, 
a  recount  was  made  after  the  sitting.  The  two  lists  were  com¬ 
pared,  and  it  was  found  that  an  error  had  been  made  in  adding  it 
up,  and  the  figures  should  have  been:  For  the  motion  42,  against 
45,  instead  of  40  and  45  as  was  given  out. 

The  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  met  yes¬ 
terday  for  the  first  time.  M.  Arthur  Fontaine,  France,  was  elected 
permanent  chairman.  It  was  decided  not  to  elect  the  director  of 
the  labor  office  permanently  until  the  governing  body  had  been 
fully  constituted,  but  Mr.  Albert  Thomas,  of  France,  was  chosen  to 
act  as  provisional  director. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  to  intimate,  on  behalf  of  the  gov¬ 
erning  body,  that  we  have  a  time  table  this  morning,  and  my 
duty  is  to  keep  to  that  time  table.  It  is  as  follows:  The  vote  on 
special  countries,  10.30;  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion,  11;  employment  of 
children,  11.45;  report  on  white  phosphorus,  12;  report  on  ma¬ 
ternity,  1. 

The  matter  now  before  the  meeting  is  the  indorsement  of  the 
special  commission’s  report  on  tropical  and  eastern  countries. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  referring  to  the 
time  table  which  you  have  mentioned  and  the  necessity  of  getting 
through  the  business  as  quickly  as  possible,  may  I  ask  a  question 
in  regard  to  a  motion  of  which  notice  has  been  given,  and  in  regard 
to  which  the  non-European  countries  attach  considerable  im¬ 
portance?  I  refer  to  the  notice  of  motion  in  regard  to  the  compo¬ 
sition  of  the  governing  body.  May  I  ask,  Mr.  President,  if  an  op¬ 
portunity  will  be  given  to  vote  on  that  motion  to-morrow  or  to-day? 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  can  not  do  it  to-day,  Mr.  Gemmill, 
according  to  the  schedule  already  laid  down,  but  it  will  be  done 
to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  JOSHI  (India).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Joshi,  may  I  say  the  conference  has 
accepted  the  time  table,  and  automatically  the  closure  comes  on 
you  at  half  past  10. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  On  that  point,  might  I  just 
formally  lodge  a  protest,  not  only  on  my  own  behalf  but  on  behalf 
of  others  who  are  not  here.  I  did  not  see  this  bulletin  until  I  came 
here.  It  is  a  little  unfair  that  this  information  has  not  been  earlier 
in  the  hands  of  the  delegates. 


The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  in  the  same  position  as  Mr.  Craw¬ 
ford.  I  could  foresee  this  a  few  days  ago. 

Mr.  JOSHI  (India).  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the 
motion  for  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  commission  of  special 
countries  regarding  the  question  of  hours  of  work.  Mr.  President,  I 
have  written  out  my  remarks,  and  if  the  conference  has  no  objection 
it  can  be  put  in  as  it  is  and  it  will  save  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  is  a  very  sensible  suggestion,  that 
Mr.  Joshi’s  observation  should  be  taken  and  put  upon  the  record, 
and  with  that  in  mind  he  has  no  desire  to  address  the  meeting. 
Is  that  agreed? 

Statement  Presented  By  Mr.  Joshi. 

Mr.  President,  I  would  like  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  motion 
for  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  commission  on  special  countries 
regarding  the  question  of  the  hours  of  work. 

At  the  outset  it  is  my  duty  to  explain  that  personally  I  do  not  approve 
of  the  idea  of  excluding  India  altogether  from  the  main  convention 
on  this  question  to  be  applied  to  western  countries.  I  believe  that 
even  if  the  hours  of  work  in  Indian  factories  be  reduced  to  48  a  week 
the  Indian  workers  will  produce  during  that  period  what  they  are 
expected  to  produce  in  a  week  of  60  hours.  But  I  recognize  that 
the  country  as  a  whole  may  not  support  this  view,  and  more¬ 
over,  as  the  object  of  this  conference  is  not  merely  to  give  us  an 
opportunity  to  express  our  personal  views  but  to  achieve  some  tangi¬ 
ble  results,  I  have  for  practical  considerations  temporarily  agreed 
that  India  may  be  regarded  as  a  special  country  for  the  present  and 
the  convention  about  the  hours  of  work  may  be  applied  to  her  in  a 
modified  form. 

After  having  thus  explained  my  position  it  gives  me  great  pleasure 
to  state  that  regarding  the  hours  of  work  in  factories  in  India  the 
commission  has  arrived  generally  at  a  satisfactory  result,  inasmuch 
as  they  have  proposed  to  reduce  the  working  hours  from  72  a  week  to 
60  a  week,  and  I  congratulate  the  Government  delegates  from  my 
country  upon  their  very  willingly  putting  forward  this  proposal. 
I  should  have  liked  if  the  commission  had  agreed  to  fix  a  maximum 
limit  of  10  hours  for  a  day’s  work.  But  that  is  a  small  point  consid¬ 
ering  the  result  achieved. 

But  while  I  generally  approve  of  the  main  proposal  I  wish  to  state 
that  the  commission  could  have  dealt  with  the  workers  of  India  in  a 
more  generous  manner  in  some  smaller  matters  than  they  have  done. 

First.  I  should  have  liked  if  the  commission  had  permitted  the 
application  of  the  principle  of  the  60-hour  week  to  a  wider  field  by 
including  in  the  term  “factory”  an  industry  working  with  some 
mechanical  or  electrical  power  and  employing  not  less  than  10  men. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


169 


At  present  in  India  the  minimum  number  of  workers  necessary  to 
constitute  a  factory  is  50;  but  the  Provincial  Government  has 
power  to  lower  this  limit  to  20.  In  the  case  of  some  classes  of  fac¬ 
tories  this  power  has  been  exercised  by  two  Provincial  Governments. 
Therefore  the  proposal  to  reduce  the  limit  to  10  is  not  a  very  sudden 
reduction.  The  only  objection  that  was  taken  to  my  proposal  was 
that  the  Government  had  not  sufficient  information  about  the  smaller 
factories.  But  as  the  commission  has  accepted  the  view  that  India 
is  not  yet  industrially  developed  the  number  of  factories  employing 
power  can’t  be  very  great  and  no  extensive  and  prolonged  inquiries 
are  necessary  to  secure  information  about  them. 

Second.  I  should  have  liked  the  commission  to  reduce  the  number 
of  hours  of  the  employment  of  women  in  factories  from  60  to  54. 
The  argument  |  sed  against  this  proposal  is  that  in  western  countries 
no  distinction  is  made  between  women  and  men  as  regards  their 
hours  of  work.  But  we  must  remember  that  in  western  countries 
the  hours  for  both  men  and  women  are  shorter  and  therefore  the 
conditions  are  not  similar.  Moreover,  I  may  make  bold  to  say  that 
in  India  women  have  to  do  more  domestic  work  besides  the  work  in 
the  factory  than  in  western  countries.  According  to  the  proposed 
convention  the  hours  of  work  of  men  have  been  reduced  from  72  to 
60,  i.  e.,  daily  2  hours  less.  The  present  weekly  hours  of  work  for 
women  in  India  are  66  and  if  we  give  them  the  benefit  of  similar 
reduction  their  hours  of  work  must  be  lowered  to  56,  as  I  suggest. 
You  will  agree  with  me  that  women  employed  in  factories  deserve 
not  only  equal  but  greater  consideration  at  the  hands  Of  this  con¬ 
ference.  Let  the  factory  women  in  India  reach  the  western  standard 
of  the  hours  of  work  a  little  earlier  than  men. 

Third.  I  should  have  liked  the  commission  to  consider  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  hours  of  work  of  children  under  16.  But  the  commission 
ruled  it  out  of  its  scope.  The  Oriental  subcommittee  of  the  com¬ 
mission  on  children’s  employment  also  declared  the  question  out  of  its 
scope  and  thus  the  question  of  the  hours  of  children’s  employment 
is  neglected  altogether.  At  present  in  India  children  under  16 
work  for  36  hours  in  textile  factories  and  62  in  other  factories,  and 
I  would  only  propose  to  reduce  the  hours  to  30  a  week.  I  hope 
you  will  remember  that  in  western  countries  and  in  Japan  and 
Asia,  children  under  16  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  work  at  all,  and 
therefore  I  shall  not  be  asking  too  much  if  I  ask  to  have  the  hours 
of  children  under  16  reduced  only  to  30. 

You  will  thus  see  that  the  changes  which  I  should  have  liked  the 
commission  to  introduce  in  their  report  are  very  reasonable  and 
could  have  been  safely  adopted. 

But  as  you  are  all  anxious  to  get  through  the  work  of  the  conference 
as  early  as  you  can,  I  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  questions 
mentioned  in  my  amendment  till  the  next  year’s  meeting  of  the 
conference  in  the  firm  hope  that  they  will  then  receive  very 
sympathetic  consideration. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Is  there  any  further  talk  on  the  eastern 
commission’s  report? 

If  not,  I  would  thank  some  one  for  a  proposition  that  would  be  ac¬ 
cepted  either  singly  in  regard  to  India  or  as  a  whole  block. 

Mr.  KERSHAW  (India).  Mr.  President,  I  suggest  that  the  re¬ 
port  be  put  to  the  conference  as  a  whole. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Kershaw  moves  that  the  report  be 
put  as  a  whole  and  you  will  observe,  gentlemen,  that  there  is  a 
supplementary  report  in  the  report  of  Tuesday’s  proceedings,  at 
page  362  [Provisional  Record],  in  regard  to  Greece  and  Roumania. 

Is  there  a  seconder  to  that? 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  I  second  the  motion. 

Mr.  ORGHIDAN  (Roumania).  I  second  Mr.  Kershaw’s  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  I  take  a  vote,  gentlemen,  on  the 
adoption  of  the  whole  report? 

I  understand  Mr.  Carlier  to  say  there  was  a  motion  putin  yesterday 
bearing  on  this  matter.  If  so,  may  we  have  it  now?  It  is  not  here. 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  I  proposed  yesterday  a  motion  asking 
Mr.  Fontaine  to  include  in  his  scheme  article  9  with  the  modi¬ 
fication  that  I  proposed. 


The  PRESIDENT.  As  applied  to  what,  sir? 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  I  sent  my  motion  to  the  Secretary  General. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  This  is  the  motion; 

The  case  of  countries  where  climatic  conditions,  incomplete  development,  or 
other  special  circumstances  modifying  essentially  the  productiveness  of  the  workers 
should  be  inquired  into  by  the  special  conference  which  is  to  examine  the  problems 
of  sea  transport  or  by  next  year’s  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  That  has  no  application  to  the  matter  in 
hand.  The  sea  conference  is  to  discuss  sea  and  inland  water¬ 
ways  and  nothing  else.  Consequently,  I  rule  that  out  of  order. 
May  we  have  a  vote,  please,  on  Mr.  Kershaw’s  motion,  seconded  by 
Mr.  Gemmill? 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  May  I  ask  you  to  take  up  my  motion? 

The  PRESIDENT.  This  is  not  the  time.  It  is  regrettable  that 
we  have  gotten  into  a  little  bit  of  a  knot  in  regard  to  this  question. 
My  duty  is  perfectly  simple.  We  are  now  discussing  the  special 
commission’s  report,  and  I  want  the  conference  to  confine  its  atten¬ 
tion  to  that.  In  regard  to  the  other  matter,  it  may  come  up  some 
time — I  don’t  know — but  at  all  events  now  is  not  the  time,  and  if 
any  proposition  of  that  character  is  put,  in  regard  to  referring  this 
matter  to  the  sea  conference,  I  should  have  to  rule  it  out  of  order, 
whenever  it  came  up. 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  The  maritime  conference  or  the  next 
conference? 

[Cries  of  “Order!”] 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  May  I  ask  the  chairman  if  Brazil  is 
included  among  the  special  countries? 

The  PRESIDENT.  No,  sir;  it  is  not;  because  there  was 
no  application.  All  the  countries  that  claim  special  consideration 
■were  given  that  special  consideration.  Brazil  having  failed  to  make 
any  application - 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil,  interrupting.)  We  were  not  here.  I 
explained  that  yesterday. 

The  PRESIDENT  (continuing) — is  therefore  outside  the  scope 
of  our  present  discussion.  Now,  I  think  that  is  perfectly  clear. 

Now,  is  this - 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil,  interrupting.)  May  I  ask  whether  I  may 
submit  a  proposition? 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  think  you  may  submit  a  proposition  to¬ 
morrow  morning,  sir,  but  not  now. 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  To-morrow  morning?  Thank  you  very 
much. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  I  say,  Brazil  made  no  special  appli¬ 
cation,  so  far  as  I  know.  Brazil  is  included  in  the  South 
American  tropical  countries.  That  being  so,  it  seems  to  me  that  you 
are,  in  a  sense,  covered;  but  if  you  are  not  satisfied,  wait -  ' 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil,  interrupting.)  It  is  only  that  that  I  ask 
you.  If  you  tell  me  that,  I  am  satisfied. 

The  PRESIDENT.  All  right.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  Well,  I  want  you  to  say  officially. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  I  have  just  said  so. 

Mr.  SAMPAIO  (Brazil).  That  is  what  I  want. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  we  have  a  vote,  please?  All  those  in 
favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  report  on  eastern  countries  will  please 
signify  by  holding  up  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  against  the  adoption  of  the  report  will  please  signify  by 
raising  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

I  will  have  to  declare  that  67  have  voted  in  favor  and  2  against. 
Therefore,  the  whole  report  is  now  adopted,  and  I  have  to  call  upon 
Mr.  Jouhaux  to  move  his  motion. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  repeat 
our  reasons  for  making  our  motion,  .and  I  hope,  since  we  agree  to 
substitute  for  the  word  “declare”  the  word  “hope,”  that  the  vote 
will  be  unanimous  on  this  question. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  not  got  the  amended  form  of  the 
resolution.  Will  Mr.  Jouhaux  please  send  it  up. 


170 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Substitute  the  word  “hope”  for  the 
word  “  declare.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  understand  Mr.  Jouhaux  refrained  from 
making  a  speech,  and  inasmuch  as  the  word  “  declare  ”  has  been 
dropped  out  and  the  word  “hope”  put  in,  he  suggests  that  that 
might  be  accepted  now  by  the  conference  without  discussion.  May 
I  say  that  I  think  that  is  a  very  sensible  suggestion  and  will  give  a 
little  more  time  for  those  subjects  that  have  still  to  be  discussed, 
that  is  to  say,  children,  white  phosphorus,  and  maternity.  Mr. 
Nolens. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (the  Netherlands).  Mr.  President,  it  is  true,  espe¬ 
cially  now  that  the  word  “hope”  has  been  substituted  for  the  word 
“declare,”  that  we  are  only  expressing  a  request,  a  desire,  a  wish, 
less  than  that,  a  hope,  but  I  think  that  there  are  perhaps  nations, 
and  possibly  employers — not  among  those  here  present,  naturally — 
for  whom  it  is  not  superfluous  to  express  this  wish  and  to  remind 
you  that  what  we  give  here  we  must  not  withhold  in  some  other  way. 

I  desire  to  state  that  I  shall  vote  for  this  motion,  especially  be¬ 
cause  if  it  is  not  accepted  by  this  conference  the  inference  will  be 
drawn  that  the  conference  desires  the  opposite,  which  is  not  the 
case,  absolutely  not.  It  is  for  that  reason,  Mr.  President,  after  these 
few  words  which,  I  am  sure,  you  will  not  take  amiss,  that  I  express 
the  hope  that  the  conference  will  vote  for  the  motion. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  Gentlemen,  I  merely  wish  to  say  on 
behalf  of  my  fellow  employers  that,  since  the  motion  has  been  cor¬ 
rected  or  amended  as  desired  by  Mr.  Jouhaux,  as  has  just  been  said, 
we  give  our  full  approval  to  it,  in  the  spirit  expressed  by  Mgr.  Nolens. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  we  take  it  now  as  unanimously 
accepted?  All  those  in  favor  will  please  signify  it,  as  a  matter  of 
form.  [Hands  raised.]  Those  against.  [None.]  I  have  to  declare 
it  carried  unanimously. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  will  now  submit  the  report  about  children. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  It  will  not  be 
necessary  for  me  to  make  any  lengthy  remarks  on  the  report  of  the 
commission  on  the  employment  of  children,  with  regard  to  the 
employment  at  night  of  young  persons  below  the  age  of  18  years, 
for  this  reason:  That  the  commission  arrived  at  a  unanimous  con¬ 
clusion  on  all  the  important  points.  It  is  very  satisfactory  that  we 
were  able  to  come  to  a  unanimous  conclusion  in  favor  of  the  general 
proposition  that  employment  at  night  should  be  prohibited  for 
young  persons  up  to  the  age  of  18  years.  That  was  an  advance  of 
two  years  on  the  limit  which  was  adopted  at  the  Bern  conference 
in  1913. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Might  I  make  an  appeal  to  the  conference 
to  sit  down  and  keep  in  order?  It  is  impossible  for  a  person  to  bo 
heard  while  conversation  and  moving  about  are  going  on. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  The  chief  diffi¬ 
culty  that  the  commission  had  to  consider  was  the  question  of  the 
special  treatment  which  was  asked  by  Belgium  and  other  countries  for 
the  regions  which  have  been  devastated  by  the  war,  and  the  regions  in 
which  employment  had  been  for  a  long  time  suspended,  owing  to 
the  occupation  of  the  armies  of  the  enemy.  The  commission  have 
tried  to  solve  this  difficulty  by  suggesting  to  the  conference  that 
the  consideration  of  that  special  question  should  be  deferred  for  a 
period  of  two  years,  until  some  experience  had  been  obtained  as  to 
the  progress  made  with  the  work  of  reconstruction.  There  was  a 
general  feeling,  I  believe,  in  the  commission  in  favor  of  some  special 
treatment.  But  we  also  felt  that  it  was  impossible  at  the  present 
moment  to  decide  what  that  special  treatment  should  be.  The 
commission  had  therefore  recommended  that  the  consideration  of 
that  matter  should  stand  over  to  the  International  Labor  Conference 
of  1921,  and  that  the  final  decision  should  then  be  taken  on  the 
point.  I  wish  only  at  this  moment  to  place  on  record  the  feeling  of 
the  commission  that  some  special  treatment  should  be  accorded. 
What  that  special  treatment  should  be  will  be  a  matter  for  further 
consideration,  and  words  have  been  inserted  in  the  draft  conven¬ 
tion  to  insure  that  the  matter  comes  up  for  decision  at  the  con¬ 
ference  of  1921.  I  think  I  need  say  nothing  further  on  the  proposals 


in  the  commission’s  report.  There  are  only  two  amendments  on 
the  paper  to  the  proposals  of  the  commission,  and  perhaps  I  may  be 
allowed  to  assume  that,  except  for  those  two  points,  the  proposals  of 
the  commission  meet  with  general  approval. 

May  I  say  a  word  as  to  the  two  amendments  which  have  been 
placed  on  the  paper  ?  One  is  an  amendment  to  be  moved  by  the 
Government  delegate  from  South  Africa,  in  favor  of  adding  to  the 
exceptions  which  are  allowed  in  certain  continuous  industries  for 
young  persons  between  the  ages  of  16  and  18.  The  amendment 
proposed  is  to  add  the  words,  in  article  3  of  the  convention,  “gold 
mining  reduction  works.”  The  Government  delegate  from  South 
Africa  has  handed  me  a  memorandum  in  which  he  explains  the 
reasons  for  his  amendment.  The  case  is  that  the  stamp  batteries  in 
the  reduction  works  run  both  by  day  and  night,  on  a  system  of  three 
eight-hour  shifts,  3,000  men  with  300  apprentices  being  employed  in 
these  shifts,  and  the  work  being  necessarily  continuous.  On  those 
facts  the  exception  proposed  stands  on  the  same  footing  in  all  points 
as  the  exceptions  which  the  commission  decided  to  recommend;  and 
I  think  I  am  justified  in  saying  that  if  they  had  had  that  particular 
industry,  which  is  peculiar  to  certain  countries  in  the  world,  if  they 
had  had  that  proposal  before  them,  they  would  have  recommended 
its  adoption. 

The  other  amendment  is  in  the  name  of  the  Government  delegate 
from  Sweden.  He  proposes  to  add,  in  article  4,  the  words,  “in 
case  of  serious  emergency.”  Paragraph  4  reads  at  the  present  time: 

The  prohibition  of  night  work  for  young  persons  over  16  years  of  age  may  be  sus¬ 
pended — 

(a)  If  the  State  or  public  interest  requires  it. 

The  amendment  would  make  paragraph  (a)  read: 

If  in  case  of  serious  emergency  the  State  or  public  interest  requires  it. 

I  am  prepared,  for  myself,  to  accept  that  amendment,  and  I  believe 
it  would  have  been  accepted  by  the  commission  if  it  had  been  pro¬ 
posed  to  them.  It  expresses  what  was  the  intention  of  the  com¬ 
mission.  The  commission  was  not  wholly  satisfied  with  the  words 
which  they  had  before  them.  Those  words  were  settled  at  the  Bern 
convention  of  1913  and  seemed  to  the  commission  to  be  lacking  in 
precision.  They  felt  it  undesirable,  however,  to  attempt  to  modify 
the  clauses  of  the  Bern  convention  further  than  was  absolutely 
necessary,  because  they  hadn’t  sufficient  time  to  make  a  thorough 
examination  of  the  subject.  I  think  the  words  which  the  Swedish 
delegate  proposes  to  move  are  an  improvement  and  that  they  should 
be  inserted. 

If  it  would  save  time,  I  would  propose  to  the  conference  to  adopt 
the  proposals  in  the  commission’s  report,  with  the  two  amendments 
which  I  have  read.  If  that  is  in  order,  Mr.  President,  I  move 
now  that  the  proposals  of  the  commission  be  adopted  with  the  two 
amendments  which  have  been  placed  on  the  paper;  that  they  be 
referred  to  the  drafting  committee  to  put  into  the  shape  of  a  draft 
convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Do  you  speak  on  behalf  of  the  commission 
in  accepting  these  two  amendments,  Sir  Malcolm? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  What  is  that? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  the  two  amendments  accepted  by  your 
commission? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  I  can  not  say 
that  they  are  accepted  by  the  commission,  but  I  think  they  are  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  expressed  by  the  commission  in  its 
report;  and,  personally,  I  am  prepared  to  accept  them,  and  if  it  will 
save  time  I  move  that  the  proposals  in  the  report  be  adopted  with 
the  two  amendments. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Including  the  two  amendments? 

Is  there  any  further  discussion,  Mr.  Baldesi? 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy— remarks  in  Italian):  I  rise  to  speak  on  this 
question  so  as  to  fulfill  my  duty  to  the  last,  but  without  much  hope 
of  having  the  motion  accepted.  I  find  that  in  the  proposals  for 
young  people  under  18  years  of  age,  there  is  talk  of  working  in  shifts, 
and  that  the  shifts  are  to  begin  at  4  o’clock  in  the  morning. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


171 


We  face  the  same  kind  of  proposal  as  was  made  in  the  case  of 
work  for  women.  In  that  case,  also,  it  was  proposed  that  the  work 
by  shifts  should  begin  at  4  o’clock  in  the  morning,  and  here  the  same 
proposal  is  made  for  young  people  under  18  years  of  age.  The 
speaker  wonders  whether,  in  a  body  like  this,  which  is  here  to  make 
international  regulations  for  labor,  it  can  support  a  motion  by  which 
young  people  will  have  to  be  getting  up  at  3  o’clock  in  the  morning 
in  order  to  get  to  their  work. 

As  a  matter  of  principle  I  am  not  opposed  to  the  system  of 
working  shifts.  On  the  contrary,  I  see  in  the  system  of  work  by 
shifts  the  possibility  of  reducing  the  hours  of  labor  without  inter¬ 
fering  with  production  by  means  of  work  in  two  shifts,  but  if  this 
work  in  two  shifts  is  to  mean  that  the  workers  would  be  required  to 
be  at  their  work  at  4  o’clock  in  the  morning,  then  may  I  ask,  is  this 
not  contrary  to  the  requirements  of  social  hygiene? 

I  therefore  suggest  the  striking  out  of  that  paragraph  which 
says  “In  the  case  of  work  in  two  shifts  the  first  shift  may  begin  work 
at  4  o’clock  in  the  morning.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposal  of  Mr.  Baldesi  refers  to  the 
second  paragraph  of  article  2  relative  to  the  prohibition  of  night 
work  of  young  persons.  It  reads  as  follows: 

In  industries  in  which  work  is  divided  into  two  shifts  the  first  shift  may  begin  at  4 
a.  m.  and  the  second  may  finish  at  10  p.  m.,  or  the  first  shift  may  begin  at  5  a.  m.  and 
the  second  may  finish  at  11  p.  m. 

The  proposal  of  Mr.  Baldesi  is  that  that  should  be  deleted.  Is 
there  a  second? 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Seconded.  May  I  take  a  vote? 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  think  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  has  a  right 
to  reply. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  May  I  say  one 
word  in  explanation?  This  clause  was  inserted  to  meet  the  case 
where  the  national  law  requires  that  a  longer  period  of  rest  should  be 
allowed  during  the  course  of  the  shift.  In  Belgium  and  possibly  in 
other  countries,  a  period  of  one  hour’s  rest  is  required  in  the  course  of 
the  eight-hour  shift.  In  most  countries,  I  think  I  am  right  in  saying, 
the  usual  period  is  half  an  hour.  The  commission  thought  it  unde¬ 
sirable  to  take  any  steps  which  would  compel  the  Belgian  Govern¬ 
ment  to  reduce  the  period  of  rest  in  the  course  of  the  shift.  This 
provision  is  simply  inserted  to  allow  the  continuance  of  a  system 
which  seemed  to  the  commission  to  be  a  good  one. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposal  is  the  deletion  of  the  second 
paragraph  of  article  2  as  I  have  just  read,  proposed  by  Mr.  Baldesi. 
All  those  in  favor  of  the  deletion  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Baldesi, 
please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  against  the  deletion. 

[Votes  counted.] 

I  have  to  declare  the  deletion  carried  by  38  to  32. 

I  shall  put  the  convention  as  a  whole,  with  the  insertion  of  the 
following  changes:  At  the  end  of  article  3  insert  the  words  “gold¬ 
mining  reduction  works,”  and  make  subsection  A  of  article  4  read 
“if  in  case  of  serious  emergency  the  public  interest  requires  it.” 
Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  has  accepted  both  amendments  as  I  have 
just  read,  and  now  I  am  putting  to  the  vote  the  convention,  includ¬ 
in':  the  two  amendments. 

Shall  we  take  a  vote,  gentlemen? 

Mr.  SMYTH  (South  Africa).  Yes;  a  vote. 

The  PRESIDENT.  All  those  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the 
convention  with  these  two  additions,  please  signify  in  the  usual  way. 

[Votes  counted.] 

All  those  against,  please. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Sixty-five  have  voted  in  favor  and  one  against;  but  now,  before  I 
declare  the  motion  carried,  I  think  it  is  only  right  to  say  that  the 
French  delegates  have  said  that  they  were  under  a  misapprehension 
in  the  previous  vote;  they  voted  in  one  way,  thinking  they  were 


voting  in  another.  It  would  not  make  any  difference  in  the  result, 
so  I  do  not  think  it  is  worth  while  going  back  to  it  now.  Then  I 
will  declare  that  carried. 

Now  we  will  take  the  white  phosphorus  in  match  factories.  You 
will  find  it  on  page  62  of  the  blue-book  report.  It  is  a  very  simple 
matter,  and  I  will  now  call  upon  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  to  put  it. 

Sir  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President, 
I  move  the  following  resolution,  which  has  been  circulated  to  the 
conference  this  morning: 

That  this  conference  recommends  to  all  members  of  the  International  Labor 
Organization  which  have  not  yet  done  so  that  they  should  adhere  to  the  international 
convention,  adopted  at  Bern  in  1906,  on  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  white  phos¬ 
phorus  in  the  manufacture  of  matches. 

A  full  statement  as  to  the  position  of  this  matter  is  contained  in 
the  report  of  the  organizing  committee,  which  has  been  before  the 
conference,  and  I  would  like  that  the  conference,  without  further 
words,  adopt  this  proposal. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  proposes  that  the 
resolution  be  adopted  as  read  to  you.  I  hope  his  suggestion  will  be 
accepted;  but  Mr.  Butler  has  some  statements  to  make  first. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  second  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne’s 
motion. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  addressed  a  letter  to  the  dele¬ 
gates  of  the  countries  which  have  not  adhered  to  the  convention 
and  perhaps  it  would  save  time  if  I  gave  a  summary  of  the  replies 
which  I  have  received.  The  Portuguese  Government  says  that  they 
have  not  yet  been  able  to  adhere  to  the  convention,  for  the  reasons 
that  they  have  given  to  the  conference,  namely,  that  they  are  bound 
by  a  contract  for  30  years,  granting  a  monopoly  in  the  manufacture 
of  matches.  This  contract  does  not  expire  till  1925.  At  the  same 
time  the  manufacture  of  matches  with  white  phosphorous  has  been 
reduced  more  and  more,  and  the  Government  hopes  to  be  able  to 
come  to  an  agreement  with  the  company  in  question  before  the  end 
of  the  contract,  which  will  enable  it  to  adhere  to  the  Bern  conven¬ 
tion. 

The  Belgian  delegation  states  that  a  law  ratifying  the  convention 
has  been  voted  in  the  Belgian  Chamber  within  the  last  two  months. 

The  Argentine  Government  is  prepared  to  adhere  to  the  Bern 
convention. 

The  Swedish  delegation  state  that  at  the  coming  session  of  the 
Swedish  Parliament  the  Government  will  propose  that  Sweden 
adhere  to  the  Bern  convention. 

The  Polish  delegation  state  that  the  Polish  Government  is  willing 
to  adhere. 

The  Peruvian  Government  makes  the  same  statement. 

The  Government  of  Guatemala  is  also  prepared  to  adhere. 

The  Czecho-Slovak  Republic  has  ratified  the  convention  by  an 
act  passed  on  October  28,  1918. 

The  Indian  Government  state  that  they  have  requested  His 
Majesty’s  Government  to  give  formal  notice  of  the  adhesion  of  India 
to  the  Bern  convention. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  we  take  a  vote  for  and  against  the 
motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  seconded  by  Mr.  Fontaine? 

All  those  in  favor  please  signify  in  the  usual  way. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Are  there  any  against?  Then  I  will  have  to  declare  it  carried  by 
83  and  none  against. 

We  have  reached  the  last  item  on  the  agenda,  and  I  am  very  glad 
to  say  that  we  have  reached  it  three-quarters  of  an  hour  inside  of  our 
time. 

The  report  will  be  submitted  by  Miss  Constance  Smith. 

Miss  CONSTANCE  SMITH  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  I  shall 
make  the  remarks  I  have  to  offer  as  few  and  as  brief  as  is  consistent  with 
clearness.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  traverse  again  the  ground  cov¬ 
ered  in  the  written  report  preceding  the  draft  convention  which  is  be¬ 
fore  you.  But  there  are  one  or  two  points  which  I  should  like  to  em¬ 
phasize.  One  is  the  unanimity  of  the  committee  on  women’s  employ¬ 
ment,  with  regard  to  the  great  fundamental  points  of  prohibition  for 


172 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


a  period  of  six  weeks  after  childbirth,  a  permission  to  leave  work  for 
a  certain  period  before  childbirth,  and  that  both  these  articles  are 
framed  on  condition  that  there  should  be  a  maternity  benefit  carry¬ 
ing  full  and  healthy  maintenance  for  mother  and  child. 

With  regard  to  this  benefit,  I  would  ask  your  special  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  committee  has  not  attempted  to  fix  any  sum,  nor 
even  any  proportionate  standard  as  regards  wages.  The  committee, 
both  by  its  subcommittee  and  in  full  session,  discussed  that  question 
of  fixing  a  standard  very  carefully,  and,  I  may  say,  exhaustively. 
They  came  to  the  conclusion  that,  in  view  of  the  different  conditions 
prevailing  in  different  countries,  it  was  impossible  to  fix  an  actual 
monetary  standard  and  that,  in  view  of  the  further  fact  that  many 
women  workers  are  underpaid,  to  assign  to  the  mother  during  the 
period  of  compulsory  unemployment  a  sum  equal  to  half  or  two- 
thirds  or  even  the  whole  of  her  wages  might  be  a  very  dangerous  and 
unsatisfactory  proceeding.  They  have,  therefore,  deliberately  left 
to  the  Government  of  the  State  to  fix  what  the  amount  of  this  in¬ 
demnity,  this  benefit,  shall  be,  only  laying  down  the  fundamental 
condition  that  it  shall  be  an  adequate  maintenance  for  the  mother 
and  child. 

The  commission  has  also  left  to  each  State  the  method  by  which  a 
payment  shall  be  made.  There  was  considerable  discussion  as  to 
whether  this  duty  should  be  placed  directly  on  the  State  and  on  the 
State  only,  but  the  commission  decided,  not  unanimously  but  by  a 
considerable  majority,  that  seeing  that  many  States  have  already  a 
system  of  insurance  which  includes  maternity  insurance,  to  require 
them  under  this  convention  to  change  their  system  of  payment  of 
maternity  benefit  was  to  put  too  great  a  demand  upon  them  at  this 
moment.  Therefore,  the  decision  of  the  commission  again  was 
deliberate,  to  leave  the  method  of  payment  open,  as  regards  the  two 
alternatives  of  State  direct  payment  or  payment  by  means  of  a  system 
of  insurance.  One  or  two  of  the  States  not  directly  represented  on 
the  commission  have  expressed  a  hope  that  the  State  might  be 
allowed,  in  the  case  where  it  did  not  pay  directly  itself,  to  delegate 
the  payment  to  such  an  intermediary  as  the  municipal  authority. 
This,  however,  is  only  an  expression  of  desire,  and  we  have  not 
inserted  anything  in  the  written  report  with  regard  to  it. 

This  wish  was  particularly  put  forward  privately  to  the  chairman 
and  secretary  by  the  representatives  of  Denmark,  and  I  wish  to  re¬ 
port  the  expression  of  their  wish  to  the  conference. 

You  will  have  observed  that  there  is  a  minority  report  put  in  by  a 
group  of  the  employers.  In  the  first  half  of  that  minority  report  the 
group  which  has  put  it  forward  proposes  to  return,  as  regards  the 
period  for  permission  to  leave  work  before  childbirth,  to  the  original 
proposal  of  the  subcommittee,  which  was  for  four  weeks  but  was 
afterwards  raised  to  six  weeks  in  full  committee.  I  think  I  need  not 
say  anything  further  on  that  than  that  the  minority  report  will  be 
moved  by  Mr.  Edstrom,  who  will  give  you  his  reasons  for  bringing  it 
forward. 

Therefore,  I  can  at  once  conclude,  but  in  doing  so  I  would  like  to 
tell  the  conference  that  in  this  commission  we  have  been  exceed¬ 
ingly  conscious  of  the  gravity  of  our  task.  The  chairman  certainly 
has  been  much  impressed  by  the  spirit  in  which  the  subject  has  been 
considered;  that  whether  proposals  or  arguments  came  from  the  em¬ 
ployers,  from  the  workers,  or  from  the  Government  delegates  who  were 
members  of  the  commission,  they  were  conceived  and  expressed  in  a 
spirit  of  earnestness  and  good  will  and  serious  desire  for  advancement 
in  this  most  important  matter,  which  is  full  of  hope  and  encourage¬ 
ment.  There  was  a  very  strong  sense  that  in  discussing  this  subj  ect  we 
were  not  discussing  a  question  or  an  interest  which  was  of  importance 
for  the  employers  in  this  way  or  for  the  workers  in  that  way,  but  a 
question  which,  for  every  country  there  represented  and  for  the  coun¬ 
tries  which  were  not  directly  represented,  was  one  of  the  deepest 
national  and  racial  importance,  and  that  we  must  use,  therefore,  our 
best  endeavors  and  our  highest  efforts  to  arrive  at  an  agreement  which 
should  mean  a  great  step  in  advance  in  protection  of  mothers  and 
children.  I  trust  that  it  is  in  this  spirit  also  that  the  conference  will 
consent  to  consider  and  to  adopt  the  report.  [Applause.] 


The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  a  minority  report,  and  I  am  going 
to  call  upon  Mr.  Edstrom  to  speak  on  that  minority  report.  It  ha* 
reference  to  article  5,  and  therefore  is  taken  somewhat  out  of  the 
order  of  the  amendment,  but  I  think  that  is  in  accordance  with  our 
previous  practice  to  give  priority  to  a  minority  report. 

Before  calling  upon  Mr.  Edstrom,  let  me  say  further  that  I  have 
on  the  table  about  six  amendments,  and  therefore  I  would  appeal  to 
the  speakers  on  the  first  amendments  to  be  as  brief  as  possible  so  as 
to  get  through  the  whole  lot  of  them,  if  possible  without  discussion. 
Mr.  Edstrom. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  Mr.  President,  ladies,  and  gentlemen, 
in  presenting  the  minority  report  I  wish  to  point  out  that  it  is  backed 
up  by  a  strong  minority,  as  it  is  signed  by  not  less  than  seven  of  the 
members  of  the  commission. 

The  minority  is  entirely  in  conformity  with  the  majority,  with  one 
exception,  namely,  the  framing  of  article  5  of  the  convention.  I 
wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  minority  does  not  deny  the 
right  of  a  working  woman  to  leave  her  work  on  presenting  a  medical 
certificate  to  the  effect  that  she  is  going  to  be  confined.  We  do  this, 
although  many  of  us  are  in  doubt  as  to  whether  it  is  wise  to  base  fac¬ 
tory  laws  on  medical  certificates.  In  fact,  bad  results  have  been  ob¬ 
tained  through  such  practice  in  certain  countries.  We  can,  however, 
not  agree  that  a  pregnant  working  woman  shall  have  the  right  to  leave 
her  work  as  early  as  six  weeks  before  confinement.  We  wish  to  point 
out  that  in  no  country,  where  such  laws  have  been  adopted,  has  a 
longer  period  than  four  weeks  been  allowed,  and  most  of  the  countries 
allow  only  two  weeks.  Most  medical  experts  on  maternity  also  favor 
the  idea  that  it  is  best  for  a  working  woman  to  continue  her  work  as 
long  as  possible  before  childbirth. 

As  a  rule  working  women  have  light  work  to  do  in  factories,  the 
character  of  work  being  especially  suitable  for  women. 

Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  we  are  here  to  adopt  a  new  convention 
for  maternity.  Why  make  this  new  convention  too  radical?  It 
will  only  make  its  adoption  by  the  various  countries  difficult.  Is  it 
not  better  to  make  a  moderate  convention  that  all  countries  can  ad¬ 
here  to? 

We  therefore  move  that  the  time  in  article  5  be  put  at  four  weeks. 
We  also  move  that  the  second  sentence  in  article  5  be  omitted.  It 
allows  pregnant  women  the  right  to  get  benefits  for  a  longer  period 
than  six  weeks  before  childbirth,  if  the  medical  certificate  has  proved 
to  be  a  mistake  and  the  confinement  takes  place  at  a  later  date.  We 
think  that  the  clause  brings  in  a  state  of  uncertainty  in  the  conven¬ 
tion.  The  medical  certificate  is  based  mainly  on  the  information 
given  by  the  mother  herself.  If  the  mother  gives  wrong  information 
the  medical  certificate  is  liable  to  be  wrong.  Thus  the  time  of  six 
weeks  before  confinement  may  be  prolonged  by  several  weeks.  We 
think  that  the  principal  thing  for  the  pregnant  woman  is  to  have  a 
period  of  rest  after  childbirth  of  six  weeks,  as  prescribed  in  article  1 
of  the  new  convention,  and  that  the  time  of  rest  before  childbirth, 
if  the  woman  needs  it,  shall  be  put  at  a  maximum  of  four  weeks. 

Mr.  President,  on  behalf  of  the  minority,  I  beg  to  say  that  we 
support  the  whole  convention  with  the  exception  of  art'cle  5,  which 
I  move  to  be  framed  as  I  read  now: 

• 

A  woman  shall  have  the  right  to  leave  her  work  in  pursuance  of  a  medical  certificate 
stating  that  her  confinement  will  probably  take  place  in  four  weeks’  time,  and  shall 
then  be  entitled  to  receive  the  benefits  contemplated  in  article  7  below. 

Dr.  NAKAHARA  (Japan).  I  second  the  motion  of  Mr.  Edstrom. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Miss  MacArthur. 

Miss  MacARTHUR  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  I  rise  to 
oppose  the  amendment  to  article  5  put  forward  by  the  minority. 
In  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  commission,  six  weeks  was  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  the  minimum  period  of  rest  to  which  a  woman  should 
be  entitled  before  childbirth.  It  is  necessary  to  point  out  that  the 
effect  of  article  5  is  not  to  prohibit  a  woman  from  working  for  six 
weeks  before  childbirth  but  only  to  allow  her  to  leave  work  if  she  so 
desires,  and  to  make  arrangements  whereby,  provided  she  has  a 
medical  certificate  that  she  is  within  six  weeks  of  her  confinement, 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


to  make  arrangements  whereby  she  may  be  supported.  Two  things 
are  necessary  before  article  5  can  be  operated.  First,  the  woman 
must  desire  to  leave  work,  and,  secondly,  the  doctor  must  certify 
that  she  is,  in  his  opinion,  within  six  weeks  of  her  confinement. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  exceedingly  surprised  at  the  terms  of  the 
minority  report.  We  are  told  that  in  the  opinion  of  doctors  it  is 
undesirable  that  women  should  cease  work  for  six  weeks  before 
their  confinement.  If  it  is  undesirable  that  they  should  cease 
work  it  must  be  desirable  that  they  should  be  employed,  therefore 
we  may  expect  to  see  leisure  women  and  the  wives  of  employers 
going  to  work  six  weeks  before  their  confinement  in  accordance  with 
medical  advice.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  one  seriously  urges  that 
employment  in  a  factory  is  beneficial  to  a  pregnant  woman  at  any 
stage  of  her  pregnancy,  and  I  think  perhaps  unwittingly  an  injustice 
has  been  done  to  the  doctor.  I  think  that  what  the  doctors  do 
object  to  is  that  a  woman  should  be  prohibited  from  working  for  a 
long  period  before  childbirth  without  any  provision  being  made  for 
her  material  support  during  that  period.  Obviously  the  doctor 
doesn’t  wish  his  patient  to  go  hungry  at  any  time  and  certainly 
not  at  such  a  time.  Obviously  a  doctor  does  not  desire  a  pregnant 
woman  to  be  unnecessarily  worried  as  to  economic  matters  when  she 
is  about  to  bear  a  child,  and  I  think  that  is  the  explanation  of  any 
evidence  that  has  been  given  by  doctors  against  a  lengthy  period  of 
prohibition  before  childbirth. 

Of  course,  it  is  urged  that  women  should  have  the  necessary  exer¬ 
cise  during  that  period,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  give  medical  advice 
to  working  women,  that  women  should  not  be  in  a  state  of  idleness 
during  pregnancy.  It  is  not  working  women  who  are  in  a  state  of 
idleness  during  pregnancy  or  any  other  time.  The  delegates  must 
remember  that  a  woman  has  work  to  do  outside  as  well  as  in  the 
factory.  When  the  man  comes  home  at  night  his  day’s  work  is  done, 
he  can  sit  down  by  the  fire  and  read  his  newspaper,  or  dig  in  his 
garden,  if  he  wishes  to;  but  a  woman’s  work  is  never  done,  and  when 
she  leaves  the  factory  she  usually  goes  home  to  begin  a  new  day’s 
work  at  home.  At  such  a  time  especially  there  is  plenty  for  the 
working  woman  to  do.  She  has  all  kinds  of  preparations  to  make  for 
the  coming  of  her  child.  She  has  to  prepare  her  house  for  the  time 
of  enforced  idleness,  she  has  to  prepare  clothes  for  the  expected 
child;  and  I  say  emphatically  that  even  if  the  woman  is  out  of  the 
factory,  the  working  woman  will  be  more  occupied  out  of  the  factory 
than  the  average  woman  of  the  leisure  classes  will  be  occupied  at 
the  same  time. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  possibility  of  the  doctor  making  a  mistake, 
the  amendment  wishes  to  lay  down  not  only  that  the  period  shall  be 
reduced  from  six  weeks  to  four  but  that  if  the  doctor  makes  a  mistake 
and  certifies  the  woman  a  week  sooner,  she  shall  not  be  paid  for  that 
week.  Well,  I  confess  I  consider  the  minority  somewhat  incon¬ 
sistent. 

First  they  say  that  the  doctor  considers  it  desirable  that  the  woman 
should  work,  and  then  they  say  that  the  doctor  may  enter  into 
collusion  with  the  woman  in  order  to  release  her  from  work  at  an 
even  sooner  period  than  the  period  stated.  Mr.  President,  I  hap¬ 
pened  to  serve  18  months  on  a  commission  in  England  dealing  with 
excessive  sickness  claims  from  working  women.  Every  doctor  of 
distinction  in  England  gave  evidence  before  that  committee.  Many 
doctors  not  of  distinction  gave  equally  valuable  evidence.  Organi¬ 
zations  representing  all  the  doctors  in  England — and  in  our  country 
the  doctors  have  a  stronger  trade-union  than  any  trade — organiza¬ 
tions  representing  all  the  doctors  gave  evidence,  and  it  was  the 
unanimous  opinion  of  all  the  doctors  that  the  excessive  sickness 
claims  of  women  were  not  caused  by  the  anxiety  of  women  to  pretend 
to  be  ill,  but  that  the  excessive  claims  were  caused  because  working 
women  had  made  themselves  seriously  ill  by  going  to  work  when  they 
were  not  fit  to  work. 

In  my  opinion  there  is  no  danger  whatsoever  that  the  women  would 
enter  into  collusion  with  doctors  to  go  away  and  receive  the  benefit 
at  an  earlier  period .  Of  course  there  are  fraudulent  women  and  there 
are  fraudulent  doctors,  but  we  do  not  desire  you  to  penalize  all  the 
women  because  of  the  fraudulent  minority.  It  is  quite  possible  for 


173 

regulations  to  be  made  under  this  convention  which  would  safeguard 
the  validity  of  the  certificates.  Nothing  could  be  more  simple. 

I  hope  very  much  the  convention  will  reject  this  amendment. 
After  all,  we  are  taking  a  great  step  forward  in  this  convention.  I 
think  it  will  be  one  of  the  greatest  things  that  have  ever  happened  if 
we  can  get  all  the  countries  of  the  world  to  take  the  steps  laid  down  in 
this  convention.  It  is  not  any  question  of  employers’  interests  and 
workers’  interests.  This  is  no  mere  industrial  or  economic  matter. 
This  is  a  question  of  the  future  of  the  race,  and  I  appeal  to  you  not 
only  to  pass  the  convention  but  to  reject  this  amendment. 

We  have  a  proverb  in  our  country,  “Don’t  wreck  the  ship  for  a 
ha’penny  worth  of  tar,”  and  I  appeal  to  you  not  to  wreck  the  con¬ 
vention,  not  to  take  away  from  the  usefulness  and  wisdom  of  the 
convention,  by  accepting  the  amendment  put  forward  by  the  minor¬ 
ity.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Judge  Castberg. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  I  think  it  is  not 
necessary  to  add  many  words  to  the  excellent  speech  of  Miss  Mac- 
Arthur  in  support  of  this  proposal  of  the  commission .  I  also  think  that 
the  report  that  is  laid  before  the  conference  here  is  of  that  kind  that 
all  friends  of  a  wider  protection  of  motherhood  may  be  content  with 
the  step  forward  that  is  here  proposed.  This  whole  question  is  one 
which  in  the  highest  degree  calls  to  the  attention  of  all  nations  and 
Governments,  especially  after  the  war,  with  its  tremendous  loss  of 
life,  the  fact  that  it  will  be  one  of  the  first  duties  to  try  to  increase  the 
birth  rate  and  strengthen  the  health  of  children  by  an  enlarged  and 
thorough  protection  of  poor  mothers,  before  as  well  as  after  childbirth, 
and  that  it  is  necessary  and  practicable  to  begin  with  the  working 
women  in  industries.  The  period  of  six  weeks  before  childbirth,  I 
will  point  out,  is  in  conformity  with  what  already  has  been  provided 
in  one  of  our  children  laws,  which  says  that  when  a  pregnant  single 
woman  is  not  able  to  maintain  herself  she  may  claim  support  from 
the  municipal  funds  for  the  last  six  weeks  before  delivery.  This 
support  is  regarded  as  a  maternity  benefit,  not  as  poor  relief.  The 
period  of  six  weeks  was  fixed  as  the  result  of  the  most  careful  investi¬ 
gation  and  discussion. 

Then  I  also  urgently  recommend  and  second  the  report  on  this 
point,  but  in  any  case  I  think  it  would  be  most  unjust  if  the  woman 
should  be  the  person  who  suffers  if  the  physician  makes  a  mistake. 
I  can  not  believe  that  it  can  be  said  that  it  would  be  right  in  that 
case  that  the  mother,  the  woman,  should  be  the  suffering  party  for 
this  mistake  of  another  person,  of  an  unqualified  doctor  or  midwife. 
If  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Edstrom  should  be  carried  here — I  hope  it 
will  not  be — I  wish  to  propose  an  amendment  to  this  amendment. 
Mr.  Edstrom’s  amendment  has  dropped  the  last  sentence  of  article 
5  in  the  report.  If,  in  any  case,  Mr.  Edstrom’s  amendment  is  car¬ 
ried,  I  think  these  words  in  the  last  sentence  of  Article  5  should 
be  added,  namely: 

In  any  case  where  the  medical  adviser  proves  mistaken  in  estimating  the  date  of 
confinement  this  fact  shall  not  preclude  the  woman  from  receiving  the  aforesaid 
benefits  from  the  date  of  the  certificate  up  to  that  on  which  the  confinement  actually 
takes  place. 

I  think  I  should  have  the  right  to  have  this  amendment  regarded 
as  proposed,  in  case  Mr.  Edstrom’s  amendment  should  be  carried. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Miss  Hesselgren,  of  Sweden. 

Miss  HESSELGREN  (Sweden).  The  Swedish  Government  dele¬ 
gates  are  very  well  pleased  to  find  that  the  draft  convention  of  the 
commission  follows  the  lines  we  have  had  the  honor  to  propose  to  the 
commission.  On  one  point,  however,  the  draft  convention  goes  fur¬ 
ther  than  we  at  present  deem  advisable  and  possible  to  get  through. 
Six  weeks’  rest  before  confinement  seems  to  us  to  ask  too  much.  As 
far  as  we  know,  there  are  no  medical  statements  proving  it  to  be 
necessary,  whereas  four  weeks  asked  for  by  the  minority  seems  to 
us  well  founded  and  likely  to  cover  all  possible  demands.  Those 
few  cases  where  a  longer  rest  is  necessary  or  needed  belong  no  doubt 
to  special  circumstances  and  are  founded  on  illness  on  the  part  of  the 
woman.  In  case  of  illness  she  will  undoubtedly  be  released  from 
work  and  her  benefit  come  from  the  sickness  insurance. 

The  maternity  benefit  system  ought  to  be  built  on  the  experience 
of  normal  cases.  The  question  of  maternity  benefits,  especially  be¬ 
fore  confinement,  is  in  most  countries  a  quite  new  and  startling  idea. 


174 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  most  important  thing  here  is,  to  our  minds,  to  draw  up  a  con¬ 
vention  that  will  have  the  best  possible  chance  of  being  accepted 
by  most  countries.  Therefore  it  is  better  not  to  ask  for  more  than 
we  can  prove  to  be  necessary. 

As  to  the  second  part  of  this  same  article,  we  quite  agree  with  the 
idea  it  champions,  and  we  would  like  to  vote  for  it,  but  as  it  seems  to 
be  difficult  to  find  a  way  to  fit  it  in  with  some  of  the  present  insur¬ 
ance  systems,  we  think  it  would  be  better  to  leave  it  for  further 
investigation,  hoping  that  with  more  experience  on  this  subject  it 
will  be  possible  to  find  a  form  that  will  fit  into  any  system. 

For  these  reasons,  Mr.  President,  we  6hall  vote  for  the  minority 
report. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Before  calling  upon  Baron  des  Planches, 
might  I  remind  the  conference  once  more  that  I  have  still  six  amend¬ 
ments  to  take  after  this,  and  if  the  minority  report  is  accepted  there 
is  an  amendment  of  that;  consequently  there  are  seven.  Therefore, 
I  hope  speakers  will  talk  as  briefly  as  possible.  Baron  des  Planches 
is  recognized. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  I  shall  be  even  more 
brief  than  the  President  himself.  I  simply  desire  to  state  that  the 
Italian  delegation  supports  the  amendment  of  Judge  Castberg,  that 
it  approves  all  the  reasons  which  he  has  adduced  in  support  of  it. 
We  are  in  favor  of  the  principle  of  the  six  weeks.  We  protest  espe¬ 
cially  against  the  idea  that  the  mistake  of  a  physician  may  prejudice 
the  woman.  That  would  be  absolutely  unjust  and  would  be  repug¬ 
nant  to  our  mind  and  feelings. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Marjoribanks  is  recognized. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just 
wish  to  point  out  that  in  connection  with  this  question — — 

.  Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  wish  simply  to  state  that  I  support 
the  motion  of  Judge  Castberg. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  have  Mr.  Marjoribanks’s  name  up,  Mr. 
Jouhaux.  Mr.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  I  wish 
to  point  out  that  when  this  question  of  the  proposed  draft  convention 
was  being  considered  in  the  full  committee,  four  weeks  was  first  of 
all  agreed  to.  It  was  then  referred  to  the  subcommittee,  who  had  to 
report  on  this  article  as  well  as  on  the  other  articles  of  the  proposed 
draft  convention.  Again  the  four  weeks  was  agreed  to,  and  it  was 
finally,  only  when  the  question  was  brought  up  in  full  committee, 
that  the  four  weeks  wras  altered  into  six  weeks.  I  think  that  goes 
to  prove  that  the  feeling — at  any  rate,  at  first — was  not  very  strong 
in  favor  of  six  weeks. 

As  regards  the  strength  of  the  minority  report,  I  should  like  to 
point  out  that  this  minority  report  represents  a  very  large  number  of 
the  members  on  the  committee  and  scarcely  can  be  called  a  minority 
report.  There  have,  I  think,  two  members  of  the  commission  left, 
and  if  that  is  taken  into  consideration  this  minority  report  represents 
fully  one-half  of  the  committee. 

There  is  also  one  other  matter  of  great  importance  in  our  opinion, 
and  that  is,  if  we  are  to  obtain  legislative  effect  to  article  2,  it  is  not 
wise  to  try  to  introduce  a  sweeping  change  which,  so  far  as  we  can 
learn,  is  not  in  actual  existence  in  more  than  one  country  and  which 
is  increasing  the  scope  far  beyond  anything  that  is  known  in  the 
large  majority  of  countries  that  are  present  here. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  think  we 
have  had  sufficient  talk  upon  the  majority  and  minority  reports, 
and  although  the  minority  report  has  been  moved  and  seconded  as 
a  separate  proposition  I  think  I  shall  be  construing  your  wishes  and 
acting  for  the  convenience  of  all  of  us  if  I  take  now  the  amendments 
in  their  order  from  article  1;  carrying  that  out,  I  have  now  to  ask 
the  Spanish  Government  delegates  to  move  their  first  amendment, 
which  is  as  follows:  For  the  last  paragraph  of  article  1  substitute  the 
following: 

In  each  country  the  competent  authority  shall  determine  the  line  of  demarcation 
between  industry  and  commerce  on  the  one  hand  and  agriculture  on  the  other. 

That,  it  is  proposed,  shall  take  the  place  of  the  last  paragraph  as  it 
reads;  the  laws  of  each  individual  country  shall  define  the  line  of 
division  which  separates  industry  from  agriculture  and  commerce. 

Mr.  Posada,  or  Mr.  Marin  in  place  of  him. 


Mr.  MARIN  (Spain).  The  delegates  of  the  Spanish  Government 
appreciate  the  reasons  thus  far  given  for  confining  the  resolutions  of 
the  conference  to  the  application  of  the  questions  of  labor  to  industry 
alone,  postponing  to  a  later  meeting  their  application  to  commerce. 
But  as  for  the  subject  now  under  discussion,  we  must  take  into 
account  not  merely  the  political  and  economic  conditions  of  the 
working  class,  but  more  important  conditions  bearing  on  maternity 
and  on  the  race.  It  is  for  this  reason,  the  Spanish  delegation  points 
out,  that  there  are  laws  in  all  countries,  in  Spain,  in  France,  and 
elsewhere,  which  deal  with  woman’s  work  in  commercial  under¬ 
takings  before  and  after  childbirth. 

We  request  the  conference  to  add  to  the  draft  convention  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  committee  after  the  words  “industrial  undertakings” 
the  words  “or  commercial  undertakings.”  Furthermore,  in  article  7, 
we  request  that  the  word  “compulsory”  be  inserted  in  the  phrase 
“a  system  of  insurance.”  In  order  to  be  able  to  vote  for  the  amend¬ 
ment  presented  by  Mr.  Jouhaux,  that  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  pay  the  benefit  in  every  instance,  the  word  “compulsory” 
must  be  added.  Without  that,  we  think  that  the  aim  of  the  draft 
convention  will  not  be  attained.  In  the  different  amendments 
which  we  have  presented,  the  delegates  will  see  that  we  have 
touched  only  upon  details  of  the  wording.  Aside  from  that,  I  say 
that  we  shall  vote  for  the  draft  convention  and  we  request  you  to 
add  the  phrase  “or  commercial  undertakings.” 

The  PRESIDENT.  While  the  interpreters  are  getting  the  hang 
of  this  let  me  say  that  I  hope  if  there  are  any  further  Spanish 
speakers  who  can  speak  French,  they  will  put  their  speeches  in 
French  and  save  the  time  of  the  conference. 

May  we  have  a  vote,  gentlemen? 

Miss  CONSTANCE  SMITH  (Great  Britain).  May  I  say  that  the 
question  of  the  inclusion  of  commercial  workers  was  fully  con¬ 
sidered  in  the  committee  and  it  was  agreed  there  as  it  was  agreed 
in  other  committees  that  it  was  impossible  at  this  time  to  propose 
extension  of  the  convention  to  commercial  workers,  as  that  would 
raise  very  large  and  new  questions  which  had  not  been  studied, 
and  therefore  the  restriction  to  industrial  workers,  as  in  other  com¬ 
mittees,  was  a  deliberate  and  considered  decision  of  the  committee. 

With  regard  to  the  proposal  for  the  introduction  of  the  word 
“compulsory,”  in  article  7,  I  believe  that  I  speak  in  the  name  of 
the  committee  when  I  say  that  we  have  no  objection  to  the  intro¬ 
duction  of  that  word. 

With  regard  to  the  last  proposal  on  the  paper,  I  think  it  is  suffi¬ 
cient  to  point  out  that  this  is  an  entirely  new  proposal,  one  which 
has  never  been  raised,  as  far  as  I  am  aware,  in  any  country  or  legis¬ 
lature  so  far,  and  it  seems,  therefore,  impossible  for  us  to  consider 
it  at  this  stage. 

The  PRESIDENT.  I  am  now  going  to  ask  for  a  vote  upon 
the  propositions  of  the  Spanish  delegates  down  to  article  3. 
Then  Mr.  Jouhaux  has  an  amendment  on  article  4,  and  we  will 
take  that  afterwards.  The  first  amendment  is  to  substitute  for  the 
last  paragraph  of  article  1,  which  reads  as  follows: 

The  laws  of  each  individual  country  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which  sepa¬ 
rates  industry  from  agriculture  and  commerce. 

The  substitute  for  that  is: 

In  each  country  the  competent  authority  shall  determine  the  line  of  demarca¬ 
tion  between  industry  and  commerce  on  the  one  hand  and  agriculture  on  the  other. 

It  seems  to  me  the  difference  is  very  small  between  the  two 

All  those  in  favor  of  the  substitution  of  the  words  as  I  have  just 
read  for  the  last  paragraph  of  article  1  will  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Thirty-seven  have  voted  in  favor  and  31  against.  Therefore  I 
have  to  declare  it  carried. 

The  next  is  in  article  1,  which  as  a  matter  of  priority  ought  to 
have  come  before  the  one  that  you  have  just  voted,  but  I  am  put¬ 
ting  them  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  been  put  to  me.  In 
article  1,  subsection  H>),  it  reads: 

Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  repaired,  ornamented, 
finished  or  adapted  for  sale. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


175 


It  is  proposed  to  add  the  words  after  that — 
and  for  commercial  sale. 

All  those  in  favor. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Is  the  proposed  change  in  harmony 
with  the  definition  of  industrial  establishments  already  adopted 
in  the  other  conventions?  It  does  appear  to  me  that  it  is  very 
important  to  preserve  the  same  definition  throughout.  I  should 
like  to  ask  that  question:  Does  the  proposed  amendment  bring 
this  in  harmony  with  the  other  conventions  or  does  it  make  it 
different  from  the  other  conventions? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  makes  it  different  from  the  other  con¬ 
ventions,  Mr.  Rowell.  That  is  the  essential  feature  about  it. 
The  other  conventions  include  industry,  and  by  the  insertion  of 
these  words  you  are  now  going  to  add  “commerce”  to  “industry.” 

All  those  in  favor  of  the  insertion  of  the  words  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  against,  please. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Thirty-five  have  voted  in  favor  and  41  against;  therefoie  it  is  lost. 
[Applause.] 

The  next  amendment  embodies  exactly  the  same  principle.  It 
is  to  insert,  in  Lne  3  of  article  2,  between  “industrial”  and  “un¬ 
dertaking” — the  words  “or  commercial,”  so  that  that  would  insert 
again  the  words  hating  relation  to  commerce  and  add  commerce  to 
industry.  This  change  is  in  article  2,  the  third  line. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  Mr.  President,  1  beg  to  say  that  if 
the  majority  ot  this  conference  puts  in  the  word  “commercial”  in 
article  2,  I  want  to  put  into  the  minutes  a  protest  against  this, 
because  commercial  workers  are  not  included,  or  commercial  people 
are  not  included  in  the  peace  treaty,  and  it  is  against  the  peace 
treaty  to  put  in  the  word  “commercial”  in  such  a  clause  as  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  let  us  be  clear.  It  has  been  sug¬ 
gested  that  by  one  vote  you  put  commerce  in  and  by  the  next 
you  took  it  out.  That  is  not  so.  By  the  first  vote  you  simply 
decided  that  competent  authority  should  take  the  place  of  law; 
that  is  all.  By  the  second  vote  you  decided  against  putting  com¬ 
merce  in.  Now,  it  is  proposed  again  that  you  put  commerce  in, 
and  having  decided  once  not  to  put  it  in  I  take  it  you  will  keep 
to  that  vote. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  don’t  want  this  conference  to  be  left, 
after  the  words  of  the  gentleman  who  has  spoken,  with  the  impres¬ 
sion  that  in  the  peace  treaty  there  is  a  limitation  and  demarcation 
between  industrial  wage  earners  and  other  kinds  of  wage  earners. 
In  Paris  we  spoke  of  wage  earners  without  any  distinction.  We 
formally  voted  that  this  International  Labor  Organization  be  for  the 
protection  of  all  kinds  of  wage  earners  and  not  limited  to  industrial 
wage  earners. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  we  get  on,  gentlemen?  We  have 
still  five  amendments.  One  of  them  is  very  important — that  to  de¬ 
lete  clause  8.  May  we  take  a  vote  on  the  insertion  of  the  words  “of 
commercial  ”  in  the  third  line  of  article  2? 

All  those  in  favor  of  the  insertion  of  these  words  will  please  signify 
by  raising  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  against. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Forty  have  voted  in  favor  and  43  against;  therefore  it  is  lost. 

The  next  proposition  is  the  consideration  of  article  3.  All  those 
in  favor  of  deleting  article  3  will  please  signify  in  the  usual  way. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  propose  a  substitution  in  article  2; 
that  is,  I  add  the  words: 

In  the  present  convention  the  term  “woman”  shall  apply  to  every  woman, 
without  distinction  of  nationality. 

I  request  this  addition,  considering  that  it  is  a  question  of  a  broad 
social  law,  and  it  would  not  be  understood  if  tills  phrase  were  not 
used  in  this  article.  I  do  not  wish  to  analyze  the  question  further, 
for  I  consider  that  it  must  commend  itself  to  the  judgment  of  every¬ 
one  and  that  enlightened  minds  will  inevitably  adopt  it. 

Air.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman. 


The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  this  is  getting  back  on  article  2  that  I 
thought  we  had  passed;  but  inasmuch  as  I  had  not  put  article  2,  but 
only  the  amendment  to  article  2,  it  does  come  within  order.  The 
proposition  now  is  to  add  the  words  “or  nationality”  after  the  word 
“age, ”  so  that  article  2  would  read: 

Throughout  this  convention  the  term  “woman”  means  every  woman,  without 
distinction  as  to  age  or  nationality. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  want  only  to  suggest  that 
Mr.  Jouhaux  should  not  move  an  amendment  of  this  kind  without 
giving  a  better  explanation  as  to  the  reason  why  he  moves  such  an 
amendment.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  utmecessary  to  insert  the  word. 
But  if  it  is  inserted  it  might  be  taken  to  mean,  in  the  country  from 
which  I  come,  without  respect  to  any  degree  of  civilization.  There 
are  women  in  South  Africa  belonging  to  the  native  tribes  for  which 
the  performance  of  the  function  such  as  is  under  consideration  to-day 
is  not  a  matter  of  hardship  or  difficulty  at  all.  They  belong  to  a 
different  stage  of  civilization  entirely,  and  this  conference  has  taken 
into  view  the  highest  form  of  civilization,  and  I  think  if  this  word  is 
going  to  be  included,  that  there  should  be  some  explanation  given 
or  some  reason  given  why  it  should  be  particularly  inserted,  because 
I  think  it  is  understood  to  include  “nationality’  ’  as  it  stands  at  the 
present  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  May  we  have  a  vote,  gentlemen,  on  the  in¬ 
sertion  of  the  words  “or  nationality”?  Please  signify  in  the  usual 
way.  Those  who  are  in  favor. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down,  please.  Those  against. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  vote  is  29  for  and  5  against;  therefore  I  have  to  declare  it 
carried. 

The  vote  is  on  the  deletion  of  article  3.  Those  in  favor  of  the 
deletion  of  article  3  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  to  delete  has  been  lost. 

You  are  now  called  upon  to  vote  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Jouhaux, 
who  has  moved  the  following  substitution  for  article  4 : 

Women  wage  earners  shall  not  be  employed  during  the  six  weeks  immediately 
following  delivery,  and  during  this  period  of  rest  they  shall  receive  indemnity  in 
accordance  with  the  article  below 

And  then  further — 

The  benefit  mentioned  in  article  5  shall  be  paid  by  the  Government. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  to  make 
any  lengthy  explanations  of  the  reasons  which  are  the  basis  of  this 
amendment.  We  have  introduced  into  the  text  a  general  term 
concerning  women,  and  that  corresponds  to  our  general  feeling  that 
commerce  can  not  be  excluded  from  a  convention  which  bears 
upon  the  situation  of  women,  for  we  do  not  wish  to  forget  at  this 
moment  that  the  majority  of  women  are  employed  in  commerce, 
and  that,  consequently,  to  adopt  a  convention  which  would  apply 
only  to  women  employed  in  industry  would  be  adopting  a  conven¬ 
tion  applying  to  only  one-third  of  the  female  workers,  and  would 
be  leaving  two-thirds  of  the  working  women  entirely  without  the 
scope  of  the  present  convention  It  is  somewhat  puerile  and  some¬ 
what  arbitrary  to  claim  to  be  protecting  maternity  when  we  leave 
two-thirds  of  the  women  outside  or  the  scope  of  the  conventions 
providing  for  the  safety  of  maternity. 

We  have  spoken  here  of  the  expert  opinions  of  physicians.  We 
could  also  cite  the  opinion  of  medical  specialists  on  these  questions, 
and  there  is  not  a  single  one  who  does  not  affirm  that  standing  is 
much  more  dangerous  for  a  pregnant  woman  than  the  sitting  position 
which  they  occupy  in  industry.  That  it  is  not  only  dangerous  for 
them,  but  equally  dangerous  for  the  child  which  is  to  be  born. 
In  the  majority  of  cases,  children  borne  by  women  engaged  in 
standing  work  weigh  less  than  those  borne  by  other  women,  and 
consequently, these  children  have  to  endure  all  their  life  the  results 
of  the  unhealthy  conditions  under  which  they  are  brought  forth. 
Hence,  not  only  will  your  convention  have  failed  to  protect  the 
woman  during  maternity  but  neither  will  it  have  guaranteed  the 
normal  development  of  the  child,  which  is  even  more  important. 


176 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


For  these  reasons  we  call  fo-  the  adoption  of  the  amendment 
which  we  have  presented,  fully  persuaded  that  otherwise  the  con¬ 
vention  would  he  puerile  and  ineffective.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Are  you  ready  to  vote,  gentlemen? 

Mr.  SMYTH  (South  Africa).  Yes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  proposition  is  to  submit  the  article 
as  suggested  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  for  article  4  as  printed;  and,  so  far  as  I 
can  see,  the  essential  thing  about  it  is  that  the  Government  instead 
of  the  employer  shall  be  held  liable. 

All  those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down,  please.  All  those  against  please  signify. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Forty-two  have  voted  in  favor  and  26  against;  therefore  I  have  to 
declare  it  carried.  [Applause.] 

N  ow  we  come  to  the  minority  report,  which  proposes  that  instead 
of  clause  5  we  inclose  the  following: 

A  woman  shall  have  the  right  to  leave  her  work  in  pursuance  of  a  medical  certifi¬ 
cate  stating  that  her  confinement  will  probably  take  place  in  four  weeks’  time,  and 
shall  then  be  entitled  to  receive  the  benefits  contemplated  in  article  7 

Mr.  Paus  wants  to  say  something  on  this  point 

Mr.  PAUS  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  I  think  it  may  be  misunder¬ 
stood  what  the  Norwegian  Government  delegate,  Judge  Castberg, 
said  about  the  time  before  confinement.  He  said  that  the  women  in 
Norway  can  get  benefits  of  maternity  insurance  for  six  weeks  before 
confinement.  That  is  right.  But  I  want  to  explain  that  this  does 
not  mean  that  the  woman  has  the  right  to  leave  her  work  six  weeks 
before  confinement.  In  our  factory  law  in  Norway  it  is  decided 
that  a  working  woman  has  the  right  to  leave  her  work  in  pursuance 
of  a  medical  certificate  stating  that  her  confinement  will  probably 
take  place  in  four  weeks. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Judge  Castberg. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  There  is  a  contradiction  between 
these  things,  Mr.  President.  I  said  that  in  one  of  our  child  laws 
it  is  said  that  when  a  pregnant,  unmarried  woman  is  not  able  to 
maintain  herself,  she  may  claim  support  from  the  municipal  funds 
for  the  last  six  weeks  before  delivery. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Now,  I  am  going  to  ask  for  a  vote.  All 
those  in  favor  of  the  minority  report  as  against  the  majority  will 
please  signify  by  raising  their  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down,  please.  Those  against. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Fifty  voted  against  and  27  in  favor;  therefore  it  is  not  carried. 

There  is  nothing  on  article  6. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  I  ought  to  put  article  6  to  the  meeting. 
That  is  quite  right. 

All  those  in  favor  of  article  6  as  it  stands,  please  signify  in  the 
usual  way. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down,  please.  Are  there  any  against?  That  has  been  carried. 

It  is  proposed  that  article  7  shall  read : 

The  benefits  named  in  articles  4  and  5  shall  be  paid  either  by  the  State  or  by  means 
ol  a  compulsory  system  of  insurance. 

Well,  you  have  decided  that  it  would  be  paid  by  the  State.  Is  it 
worth  while  to  proceed  with  that? 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  What  is  the  argument  in  favor  of  in¬ 
serting  the  word  “compulsory”?  Some  of  us  are  in  doubt  a a  to 
whether  we  should  vote  on  this.  Is  there  any  reason  why  it  should 
be  compulsory? 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  might  be  a  great  deal  said  about 
it,  but  it  must  be  said  at  another  time.  We  have  reached  1  o’clock. 
Therefore,  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  given  me  and  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  statement  I  made  at  10  o’clock,  this  meeting 
stands  adjourned.  When  you  will  take  up  7  and  8  is  a  matter  for 
the  consideration  of  those  who  are  to  determine  procedure. 

We  now  adjourn. 

[Whereupon,  at  1  o’clock  p.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  2.30 
o’clock  p.  m.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Julin  (substitute  foi  Mr.  Michel 
LAvie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier 
Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Mr.  Fausto  Ferraz. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons 
Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chilr. 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  F.  N.  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Wellington  Koo. 

Mr.  Yung  Iiwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Fransisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz. 

Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  Berthel  Dahlgaard  (substitute 
for  Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes). 

Mr.  P.  Hedebol  (substitute  lor  Mr. 

C.  F.  Madsen). 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Dr.  Don  Juan  Cueva  Garcia. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Mr.  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Boulin  (substitute  for  Mb 
Arthur  Fontaine). 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  GuArin. 

Mr.  LAon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  G.  Maginess  (substitute  for  Mr. 

D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 

Miss  M.  R.  MacArthur  (substitute 
Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr  John  Soflanopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  CantacuzAne. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Haiti: 

Mr.  Charles  Moravia. 

India: 

Mr.  I.ouis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Naryan  Malhar  Joshi. 


Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  dcs  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eiklchi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkado. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefiorr  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  X.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Panama: ' 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 

Mr.  Frederico  Calvo 
Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zuhieta. 

Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Conzales  Bazo. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Rogowicz  (substitute  for  Mr 
Franciszek  Sokal). 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghldan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Dr.  Albin  Prepeluh. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Mr.  O.  Ludevit  Periteh  (substitute 
for  Mr.  Sveta  Frantz) 

Siam: 

l’hya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanlndr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Pedro  Sangro  (substitute  for 
Viscount  de  Eza). 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 

Mr.  J.  Gascon. 

Sweden: 

Miss  Hesselgron  (substitute  for 
Judge  Erik  M.  SjSborg). 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 

Mr.  Edstrom  (substitute  for  Senator 
Hjalmar  von  Svdow). 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominiel. 

Mr.  CAsar  Zumeta. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


177 


TWENTY-FOURTH  SESSION— FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER  28,  1919. 


The  conference  reconvened  at  2.45  o’clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B. 
Wilson,  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  conference  will  be  in  order.  The 
secretary  will  make  announcements  and  read  correspondence. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  I  have  received  the  following 
telegram  from  the  German  delegation  for  the  International  Labor 
Conference: 

To  the  International  Labor  Conference, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

After  the  German  delegation  had  already  begun  its  journey  to  Washington  con¬ 
sequent  upon  the  invitation  of  the  International  Labor  Conference,  the  communi¬ 
cation  of  the  Secretary  General  of  the  conference  reached  them  at  the  last  moment 
immediately  before  their  embarkation  at  Gothenburg  to  the  effect  that  the  confer¬ 
ence  would  finally  conclude  its  deliberations  at  the  end  November,  and  that  the 
journey  of  the  German  delegates  would  accordingly  be  useless.  The  delegation 
was  therefore  compelled  with  heavy  hearts  to  decide  to  give  up  their  journey  and 
participation  in  the  conference.  In  so  informing  the  conference  they  wish  particu¬ 
larly  to  make  it  clear  that  from  the  German  side  everything  has  been  done  in  order 
to  enable  them  to  be  represented  at  the  proceedings,  and  that  this  intention  has 
only  been  frustrated  by  an  unfortunate  combination  of  circumstances.  As  soon 
as  it  was  established  that  the  German  delegates  would  be  admitted  to  the  confer¬ 
ence  with  the  same  rights  and  duties  as  the  representatives  of  other  nations,  no 
steps  were  neglected  in  order  to  enable  the  German  representatives  to  make  the 
voyage.  As  a  result,  however,  of  the  blockade  in  the  oversea  traffic  at  the  beginning 
of  the  month,  the  first  opportunity  of  sailing  did  not  occur  until  the  18th  of  Novem¬ 
ber  from  Gothenburg,  which  as  it  now  turns  out,  was  too  late.  The  German  dele¬ 
gation  is  convinced  that  their  absence  will  under  these  circumstances  not  be  mis¬ 
construed  by  the  conference  or  by  the  workers  of  the  world.  Germany  has  in  the 
last  10  years,  and  especially  since  the  suspension  of  hostilities,  done  an  extraordinary 
amount  by  way  of  legislation  and  administration  for  the  working  classes  of  the  coun¬ 
try.  This  is  particularly  true  in  regard  to  the  subjects  which  were  under  discussion 
at  Washington.  If,  therefore,  owing  to  the  pressure  of  circumstances  her  repre¬ 
sentatives  have  had  to  abandon  participation  in  the  conference  this  can  not  be 
regarded  as  indicating  any  lack  of  interest  or  of  regard  for  the  interest  of  the  workers 
so  far  as  Germany  is  concerned.  The  German  trade-unions  arc  following  the  dis¬ 
cussions  in  Washington  with  the  liveliest  interest  and  trust  that  the  nations  working 
in  cooperation  in  the  field  of  labor  protection  will  achieve  the  fullest  measure  of 
success. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair,  having  been  unavoidably  absent 
from  several  preceding  sessions,  is  not  quite  clear  as  to  the  parlia¬ 
mentary  situation.  The  Chair  understands  that  the  program  foi 
this  afternoon  is  the  final  vote  upon  the  draft  conventions  that  have 
been  agreed  to;  that  the  convention  relative  to  maternity  has  been 
considered  thi?  morning  up  to  and  including  six  of  the  eight  para¬ 
graphs.  It  is  suggested  that  a  vote  be  taken  upon  the  two  additional 
paragraphs  without  debate,  in  order  that  the  drafting  committee 
may  be  in  a  position  to  submit  a  draft  possibly  before  adjournment 
to-night.  If  that  is  not  agreeable  to  the  conference,  the  Chair  will, 
of  course,  proceed  with  the  final  vote  upon  the  draft  conventions  as 
they  have  been  prepared.  The  Chair  would  like  the  judgment  of 
the  conference  on  that  method  of  procedure. 

Miss  Mary  MacArthur,  of  the  British  delegation,  is  recognized. 

Miss  MacARTHUR  (Great  Britain).  The  alternative  is  either  to 
adopt  the  suggestion  and  vote  for  the  main  clauses,  without  dis¬ 
cussion,  or  to  risk  losing  the  convention  altogether,  and,  as  I  think 
the  only  amendment  that  remains  to  be  discussed  is  one  standing 
in  my  name,  I  rise  to  move  that  the  conference  accept  your  sugges¬ 
tion  and  vote  on  the  remaining  articles  without  discussion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Judge  Castberg. 

Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  I  shall  also  support 
the  proposal  of  the  president.  It  would  be  too  bad,  I  think,  if  this 
very  important  matter  should  be  dropped  now  and  lost  when  we 
have  almost  finished  the  discussion  of  it.  I  most  urgently  support 
the  proposal  of  the  president. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  has  been  moved  and  seconded  that  a 
vote  be  taken  on  paragraphs  7  and  8  without  further  debate. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands.  [Hands 
raised.]  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

Agreed  to.  Baron  des  Planches  is  recognized. 


Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  I  should  like  to  in¬ 
quire  from  what  date  the  convention  that  we  have  just  voted  upon 
will  take  effect.  This  is  a  rather  important  point,  which,  it  seems 
to  me,  has  been  neglected  in  drawing  up  the  articles. 

The  PRESIDENT.  As  the  Chair  understands  it,  if  this  conven¬ 
tion  is  agreed  to  it  will  go  to  the  drafting  committee  which  would 
then  determine  the  date  of  its  going  into  effect. 

The  Chair  understands  that  several  amendments  are  pending,  or 
one  or  two  amendments  are  pending  to  these  paragraphs.  The 
amendments  will  be  put  without  discussion.  Miss  MacArthur. 

Mr.  MAX  LAZARD  (France).  Article  8  has  just  been  voted 
upon.  Miss  MacArthur  withdrew  her  amendment,  and  we  voted 
on  article  8. 

Miss  MacARTHUR  (Great  Britain).  My  amendment,  Mr. 
President,  is  to  delete  article  8. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  occurs  on  the  adoption  of 
article  7.  The  following  amendment  is  proposed  by  Mr.  Posada  and 
Mr.  Gascon  of  the  Spanish  delegation.  In  article  7,  before  the 
words  “system  of  insurance”  insert  the  word  “compulsory.”  The 
question  is  on  the  adoption  of  the  amendment. 

As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  The  vote  is  34  in  favor  and  36  against,  and  the  amendment 
is  therefore  not  agreed  to. 

The  following  amendment  is  proposed  by  Mr.  Posada  and  Mr. 
Gascon  of  the  Spanish  delegation.  Add  as  a  new  paragraph  to  arti¬ 
cle  7  the  following: 

In  every  case  the  benefits  or  the  insurance  shall  be  determined  if  possible  by 
taking  into  account  the  number  of  children  of  the  workers  provided  for  in  the  present 
convention. 

The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  amendment. 

As  many  as  favor  the  amendment  will  raise  their  right  hands  and 
keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  Chair  is  in  doubt.  The  votes  will  be  taken  over  again. 

As  many  as  favor  the  amendment  will  raise  their  right  hands  and 
keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  will  keep 
them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  vote  has  been  a  tie  both  times.  A  majority  not  having  voted 
in  favor  of  the  amendment  the  amendment  is  lost. 

Mr.  MAX  LAZARD  (France).  How  many  votes? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Thirty-eight  votes  on  each  side. 

The  question  now  recurs  on  the  adoption  of  article  7.  If  there  is 
no  objection  the  article  will  be  agreed  to. 

The  Chair  hears  none.  It  is  so  agreed. 

The  question  is  now  upon  the  adoption  of  article  8.  The  Chair 
recognizes  Miss  MacArthur.  The  Chair  has  not  a  copy  of  Miss 
MacArthur’s  amendment. 

Mr.  MAX  LAZARD  (France).  Will  you  read  the  amendment? 

Miss  MacARTHUR  (Great  Britain).  My  amendment  is  to  delete 
article  8  altogether;  to  strike  it  out. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  before  the  house  is  to  delete 
article  8. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  to  delete  article  8  will  raise  then 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 


146865°— 19 - 12 


178 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

[Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy)  rises.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  president  will  not  entertain  discussion 
during  a  vote. 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy).  We  want  enlightenment  on 
the  vote.  What  are  we  going  to  vote  on?  Is  it  the  elimination  of 
article  8  or  the  retention  of  article  8? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  to  delete;  that  is,  to  cut  out  of 
the  convention,  to  take  article  8  out  of  the  convention. 

As  many  as  favor  the  deletion  of  article  8  from  the  conven¬ 
tion  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until 
counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them 
raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  By  a  vote  of  54  to  29  the  motion  is  not  agreed  to.  The 
question  now  recurs  upon  agreeing  to  article  8. 

As  many  as  favor  agreeing  to  article  8  will  raise  their  right  hands 
and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

Let  the  Chair  explain.  The  motion  made  by  Miss  MacArthur  was 
to  leave  article  8  out  of  the  convention.  That  motion  was  lost. 
Negatively,  that  would  be  equivalent  to  agreeing  to  article  8;  but 
affirmatively,  it  is  not- as  yet  agreed  to,  and  it  is  necessary  to  have 
an  affirmative  vote  before  it  can  be  considered  agreed  to.  Hence, 
the  Chair  is  putting  it  into  the  affirmative  form. 

As  many  as  favor  agreeing  to  article  8  will  raise  their  right  hands 
and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised 
until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to  by  a  vote  of  56  to  20.  Without  objection 
the  convention  will  be  referred  to  the  drafting  committee  for  final 
report.  The  Chair  hears  none. 

Mr.  MERTENS  (Belgium).  I  rise  to  inquire  whether  or  not  the 
motions  which  follow  the  articles  are  to  be  adopted.  I  should  like 
a  vote  on  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  attention  of  the  Chair  is  called  to  the 
fact  that  there  are  two  motions  still  pending  in  connection  with  this 
report.  A  vote  will  be  taken  without  debate  upon  the  first  of  these 
motions. 

The  first  motion  is  that  the  Indian  Government  be  requested  to 
make  a  study  of  the  employment  of  women  before  and  after  con¬ 
finement  and  all  maternity  benefits  before  the  next  conference  and 
to  report  on  these  matters  to  the  next  conference.  The  question  is 
on  agreeing  to  that  motion. 

Those  in  favor  of  the  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Hands  raised.]  Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right 
hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to.  The  question  now  recurs  on  the  second 
of  these  amendments,  which  is  as  follows: 

The  committee  recommends  to  the  conference  that  the  Governments  be  requested 
to  study  the  question  of  giving  every  working  woman  the  right  to  remain  away  from 
work  after  the  birth  of  a  child  for  a  longer  period  than  that  fixed  in  the  draft,  conven¬ 
tion  and  to  receive  certain  benefits  during  her  absence  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
her  to  remain  with  and  to  nurse  her  child.  This  subject  will  be  placed  upon  the 
agenda  for  the  next  conference. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  motion  is  agreed  to. 

Without  objection  the  report  will  be  referred  to  the  drafting  com¬ 
mittee  for  the  preparation  of  a  draft. 

The  Chair  hears  no  objection.  It  will  be  so  referred. 


The  report  of  the  drafting  committee.  Mr.  Hudson,  in  behalf  ol 
the  drafting  committee. 

Mr.  Hudson  (legal  adviser  of  the  conference).  The  drafting 
committee  presents  the  text  of  five  draft  conventions  which  have 
been  adopted  by  the  conference.  In  so  far  as  possible  these  con¬ 
ventions  have  been  drafted  along  uniform  lines.  The  formal  parts 
of  the  convention  follow  one  standard  which  has  been  carefully 
worked  out  by  the  drafting  committee  to  accord  with  the  provisions 
of  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  and  which  it  is  hoped  may 
serve  for  draft  conventions  in  the  future. 

In  drafting  the  substantive  parts  of  the  various  draft  conventions 
the  drafting  committee  has  employed  standard  expressions  when¬ 
ever  the  use  of  these  expressions  has  not  interfered  with  the  meaning 
of  the  report  or  the  draft  referred  to  this  committee  by  the  conference. 
The  drafting  committee  wishes  to  suggest  to  the  conference  that  it 
is  of  the  highest  importance  that  such  uniformity  should  be  observed 
as  far  as  possible  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  confusion  in  the  future 
concerning  the  legal  results  which  flow  from  these  draft  conventions. 

Will  each  of  you  have  in  his  hand  the  printed  text  of  the  drafting 
convention  fixing  the  age  for  admission  of  children  to  industrial 
employment?  We  desire  to  illustrate  by  that  convention  what  is 
being  said  in  this  report. 

In  the  substantive  articles  of  the  draft  convention  it  has  been  pos¬ 
sible  to  incorporate  a  uniform  definition  of  the  term  “industrial 
undertaking,”  and  this  convention  is  article  1  in  all  five  of  the  draft 
conventions.  You  will  see  the  article  1  in  this  draft  convention 
which  we  have  printed. 

In  the  formal  parts  of  the  draft  conventions  the  preamble  is  the 
same  for  all  of  them,  and  it  is  designed  to  bring  clearly  the  adoption 
of  the  draft  conventions  within  the  requirements  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  concerning  the  agenda  in  each  case. 

The  next  formal  article,  which  is  the  same  for  all  of  the  draft  con¬ 
ventions,  and  which  is  article  7  in  this  draft,  merely  states  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  treaty  with  reference  to  ratifications  and  their  com¬ 
munication  to  the  League  of  Nations. 

The  next  article,  article  8,  repeats  the  treaty  provision  for  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  draft  convention  to  colonies,  possessions,  and  protectorates. 

The  next  two  articles,  articles  9  and  10,  of  this  draft  relate  to  the 
dates  on  which  the  draft  convention  will  come  into  force  as  a  con¬ 
vention  in  international  law.  It  is  necessary  to  set  a  definite  date. 
Clearly  one  country  should  not  be  bound  internationally  by  a  draft 
convention  unless  it  is  ratified  by  other  countries. 

The  next  article  sets  the  latest  date  upon  which  the  provisions  of 
the  draft  convention  are  to  be  brought  into  operation  in  the  domestic 
legislation  of  each  of  the  countries  which  ratify  it.  It  is  possible  for 
any  country  to  enact  the  necessary  legislation  in  advance  of  this  date, 
and  the  drafting  committee  has  followed  the  wishes  of  the  various 
commissions  in  fixing  the  date  named  as  the  latest  date  upon  which 
the  legislation  must  come  into  operation.  As  an  international  obli¬ 
gation  the  draft  convention  may  have  come  into  force  before  this  date, 
and  this  date  merely  expresses  the  time  allowed  to  each  country  for 
fulfilling  its  international  obligation. 

In  some  cases  the  members  of  the  labor  organization  may  be  unwill¬ 
ing  to  ratify  the  draft  convention  apart  from  action  by  other  members 
of  the  labor  organization.  Of  course,  any  member  may  refrain  from 
communicating  its  ratification  to  the  secretary  general  of  the  League 
of  Nations  until  it  has  ascertained  that  certain  other  members  are  will¬ 
ing  to  ratify  it.  Or  it  is  possible  that  a  member  may  condition  its 
ratification  upon  the  ratifications  of  other  members  of  the  labor 
organization.  In  such  a  case  it  is  well  understood  that  such  a  con¬ 
ditional  ratification  will  become  effective  and  should  be  registered 
by  the  secretary  general  only  when  the  conditions  are  fulfilled. 

The  next  article,  article  12,  relates  to  denunciation.  Such  an 
article  is  ordinarily  inserted  in  every  international  convention,  and 
the  article  here  proposed  by  the  drafting  committee  has  been  arrived 
at  after  consultation  with  the  various  commissions. 

The  next  article,  article  13,  directs  the  governing  body  to  con¬ 
sider,  at  least  once  in  10  years,  the  desirablilty  of  placing  on  the 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


179 


agenda  of  the  conference  the  question  of  revising  or  modifying  the 
draft  conventions.  Under  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  it 
is,  of  course,  open  to  the  conference  or  the  governing  body  to  place 
any  question  upon  the  agenda  at  any  time,  but  it  has  seemed  well 
to  insert  the  article  here  proposed. 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  article  in  no  way  encourages  unneces¬ 
sary  action  which  might  disturb  settlements  already  arrived  at 
but  it  simply  contemplates  the  study  of  the  working  of  the  draft 
conventions  in  order  that  their  revision  may  be  considered  in  case 
their  provisions  may  appear  to  have  become  obsolete. 

Of  course,  that  article  will  in  no  way  interfere  with  the  article  in 
the  eight-hour  day  convention  which  calls  for  a  study  of  the  working 
of  the  draft  convention  oftener  than  every  10  years. 

The  drafting  committee  has  in  each  case  arrived  at  the  final  text 
after  consultation  with  the  commissions  on  whose  report  the  draft  is 
based.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  drafting  committee  has  in  no 
case  authorized  any  departure  from  the  terms  or  meanings  of  these 
reports  except  in  so  far  as  amendments  have  been  accepted  by  the 
conference. 

In  article  11  of  the  convention  fixing  the  age  for  admission  of 
children  to  industrial  employment  there  is  one  important  typo¬ 
graphical  error.  The  English  text  says  that  each  member  which 
ratifies  this  convention  agrees  to  bring  its  provisions  into  operation 
not  later  than  January  1,  1922.  It  should  read  “July  1,  1922.” 

The  French  text  of  article  11  is  correct. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  recurs  on  agreeing  to  the  draft 
convention  fixing  the  age  for  admission  of  children  to  industrial 
employment.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  Chair  will  state  for  the  information  of  the  conference  that  it 
requires  GO  members  present  to  constitute  a  quorum  and  two-thirds 
of  a  quorum  voting  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  convention.  The 
secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

[Roll  call  ] 

Yes— 92. 


Argentina: 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 
Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 
Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 
Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  I -don  Jouhaux. 


Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 
Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredes. 
Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 


Peru: 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 
Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 
Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 
Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 


South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Hg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Cdsar  Zumeta. 


India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray 


No— 3. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  92  for  and  3  against.  The  con¬ 
vention  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  vote  now  recurs  upon  the  recommendation  concerning  the 
protection  of  women  and  children  against  lead  poisoning.  The 
secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  of  the  recommendation 
will  vote  yes;  those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 90. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 
Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 
Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 


Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzdne. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 
Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 
Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  SokaL 
Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny 


180 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 
Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 
South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 
Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 
Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 


Spain— Continued. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik'M.  Sjoborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow.  • 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Hr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  C&sar  Zumeta. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 
Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 
Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armentcros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 


Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angolus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuz&ne. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 
Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 


No — None. 

The  vote  is  90  for,  none  against.  The  recommendation  is  there¬ 
fore  agreed  to. 

The  Chair  understands  that  the  drafting  committee  requires  an 
understanding  of  a  motion  passed  this  morning,  in  order  that  it  may 
properly  draft  the  convention  now  in  its  hands.  A  representative  of 
the  committee  is  recognized. 

Miss  Constance  Smith  is  recognized. 

Miss  SMITH  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  as  chairman  of  the 
commission  on  women’s  employment,  I  have  conferred  with  the 
drafting  committee,  and  they  are  anxious  to  know  how  much  of  Mr. 
Jouhaux’s  amendment  to  article  4  was  adopted.  I  understood  from 
the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Barnes  from  the  chair  that  only  the  second 
half  of  this  amendment  was  adopted,  and  I  will  ask  you,  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  if  we  might  request  Mr.  Barnes  to  give  us  his  statement  on  that 
subject,  that  the  minds  of  the  conference  may  be  clear,  and  also 
that  the  drafting  committee  may  have  proper  instructions? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  My  ruling  was,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
only  the  second  part  of  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  was  put  to  the  meeting. 
And  I,  in  putting  it,  said  that  the  only  thing  put  to  the  meeting  was  as 
to  whether  or  not  the  state  or  the  employers  were  to  bear  the  liability. 
Might  I  say  a  word  or  two  in  justification  of  that  ruling  of  mine? 
The  Spaniards  put  up  a  series  of  motions  this  morning,  the  first  one 
of  which  put  it  that  the  competent  authority. should  decide  as  be¬ 
tween  industry  and  commerce  on  the  one  hand,  and  agriculture  on 
the  other.  And  there  seemed  to  be  some  delegates  who  were  dis¬ 
posed  to  read  into  that  that  we  were  putting  commerce  into  the  con¬ 
vention.  I  pointed  out  at  the  time  that  we  were  doing  nothing  of  the 
kind. 

The  only  matter  put  before  the  conference  on  that  motion  was  the 
substitution  of  the  words  “competent  authority’’  for  “national  law,” 
and  I  so  stated  at  the  time,  because  there  was  nothing  positive  in  it 
about  including  commerce.  It  simply  said  that  the  competent 
authority  should  determine  between  this  and  that.  Well,  the  com¬ 
petent  authority  of  any  country  can  do  that  of  its  own  accord  without 
any  instructions  from  this  body  or  anybody  else.  Consequently  I 
decided  that  so  far  as  putting  commerce  into  the  convention  was 
concerned,  there  was  nothing  in  that  first  proposition  to  justify  its 
being  put  in.  Subsequently  the  Spaniards  put  forward  two  motions 
in  which  the  direct  proposition  was  made  that  commerce  should  be 
included  in  the  convention,  and  on  each  occasion  the  conference  by 
a  considerable  majority  voted  against  the  insertion  of  commerce. 
Inasmuch,  then,  as  Mr.  Jouhaux’s  motion  included  the  idea  of 
including  all  women  wage  workers,  impliedly  including  commerce  as 
well  as  industry,  I  decided  that  that  matter  had  already  been  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  conference,  and  therefore  the  only  part  of  Mr.  Jou¬ 
haux’s  motion  was  the  last  part,  which,  as  I  said,  determined  that 
the  state  instead  of  the  employer  should  bear  the  cost. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  can  not  accept  the  interpretation 
which  has  just  been  given  of  the  vote  taken  this  morning.  And  I 
am  all  the  less  willing  to  accept  it  as  all  the  explanations  which  I 
furnished  to  justify  the  amendment  bore  upon  the  one  point  of 


showing  the  necessity  of  not  cutting  out  of  the  convention  two- 
thirds  of  all  working  women.  It  may  be  that  a  majority,  not  a  large 
one,  perhaps,  but  still  a  majority,  has  pronounced  against  the 
amendments  brought  in  by  the  Spanish  delegates. 

A  Voice.  It  is  doubtful. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX.  (France).  Does  that  mean  that  the  spirit  of  the 
amendment  made  by  the  French  workers’  delegation  shall  inevitably 
follow  the  stand  taken  by  the  president  with  regard  to  the  discus¬ 
sion?  That  would  really  be  a  strange  abuse  of  power  in  a  conference 
which  stands  for  democratic  principles. 

In  the  course  of  the  discussions  of  the  preceding  days,  I  followed 
attentively  the  methods  of  the  English  parliamentary  procedure 
and  I  observed  that  it  permitted  going  back  to  a  question  by  reason 
of  new  conjunction  of  circumstances  or  of  a  new  vote.  Imbued  with 
this  idea  I  made  use  of  that  possibility  this  morning,  and  it  would 
be  improper  if  those  who  for  the  first  time  use  a  procedure  which  has 
involved  them  in  confusion  for  a  month  and  which  frequently  has 
been  detrimental  to  their  position,  should  be  deprived  of  its  benefit 
the  first  time  that  they  avail  themselves  of  the  procedure.  I  may 
say,  then,  that  I  consider  the  explanation  furnished  this  morning 
did  not  throw  any  light  on  the  spirit  of  the  amendment  which  I 
presented  and  that  consequently  the  vote  taken  does  not  bear  on 
the  word  “period”  but  on  the  words  “female  wage  earners.” 

Mr.  MORIN  (Spain).  I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  had  been  advised  that  the  drafting 
committee  was  in  doubt  as  to  what  the  purport  of  the  action  of  the 
conference  this  morning  was,  and  that,  therefore,  an  explanation 
was  necessary,  that  the  drafting  committee  might  be  advised  as  to 
what  the  purport,  what  the  intent  of  the  action  of  the  conference  this 
morning  was.  The  Chair  is  now  advised  that  the  drafting  committee 
feels  that  the  record  is  clear,  and  it  is  not  asking  for  an  interpretation 
from  the  conference.  The  Chair  yielded  to  having  this  matter  intro¬ 
duced  solely  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  business  of  the  con¬ 
ference.  It  is  not  in  order  at  this  time,  and  consequently  further 
discussion  will  not  be  recognized  by  the  Chair  in  connection  with  it. 

The  question  recurs  upon  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation 
concerning  the  prevention  of  anthrax.  The  secretary  will  call  the 
roll.  Those  in  favor  of  the  recommendation  will  vote  yes.  Those 
opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 95. 


181 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 
Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan 
Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 


Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Cdsar  Zumeta. 


No— None. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  95  for  and  none  against.  The 
recommendation  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  question  now  recurs  on  the  recommendation  concerning  the 
establishment  of  government  health  services.  The  secretary  will 
call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes;  those  opposed  will 
vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 93. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  earlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 
Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 
Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 
Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

.  Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 


Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzdne. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos, 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 
Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez, 
Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 
Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 


Peru: 

.Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 
Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 
Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 
Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 
Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 
Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 
Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 


South  Africa: 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Cfear  Zumeta. 


Ho— None. 


The  vote  is  93  for,  none  against.  The  recommendation  is  therefore 
agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  draft  convention  concerning  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  during  the  night.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 
Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes.  Those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yeas— 94. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino 
Belgium: 

Mr.  Michel  Lgvie. 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahdtm. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell 
Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 
Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen 
Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 
Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gu6rin. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir.  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 
Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 
Mr..Eugene  Cantacuz&ne. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 


Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 
Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw. 
Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione. 
Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 
Paraguay: 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 
Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 


182 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Serbs,  Croats  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 


Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 
Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Kocli. 
Senator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Cdsar  Zumeta. 


No— 1. 

Norway: 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  94  for,  1  against,  and  1  ahsten. 
tion.  The  draft  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  draft  convention  concerning  unem¬ 
ployment.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll,  those  in  favor  will  vote 
yes,  those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

The  question  has  been  raised  that  the  draft  convention  concerning 
unemployment  has  not  been  circulated.  The  Chair  is  in  possession 
of  a  copy,  “A  draft  convention  concerning  unemployment,” 

A  Delegate.  We  have  it. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  A  copy  has  not  been  furnished  us.  We 
have  a  draft  convention  on  the  night  work  of  young  persons,  that  is, 
the  one  just  distributed. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  It  is  a  typewritten  document 
which  most  of  the  delegates  seem  to  have. 

Several  Delegates.  Yes,  we  have  it. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman  might  I  suggest 
that  as  these  things  have  just  been  circulated  not  so  very  long  ago - 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Last  night. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Well,  I  have  only  just  dis¬ 
covered  it  here,  and  I  suggest  that  the  clauses  be  read.  Many  of 
the  clauses  are  similar  to  those  reported  in  other  draft  conventions. 
I  believe  there  are  only  about  three  clauses  here  that  vary,  and  if 
these  were  read  it  would  settle  the  matter  in  the  minds  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  who  are  about  to  vote. 

Several  Delegates.  No,  no. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  if  you  will 
read  each  of  these  documents  at  length  you  will  not  get  through  in 
schedule  time. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  withdraw  my  suggestion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Pending  the  time  when  those  who  have  not 
secured  copies  of  the  draft  convention  concerning  unemployment 
are  looking  that  up  and  becoming  acquainted  with  the  contents, 
the  Chair  will  pass  to  the  next  item,  and  the  question  will  recur  on 
the  draft  convention  limiting  the  hours  of  work  in  industrial  under¬ 
takings  to  8  in  the  day  and  48  in  the  week.  The  secretary  will  call 
the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  “yes,”  those  opposed  will  vote 
“no.” 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Again,  Mr.  Chairman,  copies  have  not 
been  left  here. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  have  no  copies,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  We  have  it  here. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Might  I  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the 
secretarial  staff  have  additional  copies,  if  we  could  be  furnished 
with  them  now?  Apparently  they  have  been  distributed  to  some 
of  the  members  of  the  conference  but  not  to  all.  We  have  not 
copies  here. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Copies  were  circulated  last 
night  to  all  delegates  at  their  hotels,  and  to  my  knowledge  a  great 
number  of  delegates  received  them  at  their  hotels  this  morning  at 
9  o’clock.  I  will  do  my  best  to  supply  additional  copies  to  those 
delegates  who  have  not  got  them,  but  I  rather  fear  the  supply  has 
been  exhausted. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  hours  question  will  be  passed  for  the 
time  being,  pending  the  securing  of  copies,  and  the  question  will 
recur  on  the  draft  convention  concerning  the  night  work  of  young 
persons  employed  in  industry.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 
Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes.  Those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 93. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamonien. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gu&in. 

Mr.  I-don  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cant.acuzene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Dr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Carbini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masaimoto. 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkadc. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway : 

Judge  Johan  Cast  berg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  I-acerda. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  nermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay. 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  C6sar  Zumeta. 


No— None. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  93  for  and  none  against.  The 
convention  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  recommendation  concerning  phos¬ 
phorus  matches. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


183 


The  secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes. 
Those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

'  [Roll  call.] 

Yes— 92. 


I  simply  wish  to  record  the  objection;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  Mr.  President,  I  just  wish  to  say 
that  this  recommendation  refers  to  a  matter  which  has  been  referred 
to  us  by  a  resolution  of  the  supreme  council  of  the  allied  and  associ¬ 
ated  powers  at  Paris. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— so. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil 
Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  Lgvie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Yestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Mr.  L4on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain. 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingnc. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzfene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Mr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Dr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 


Netherlands: 

Mgr  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Panama: 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  C6sar  Zumeta. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L4on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea.  ■ 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriquez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 


Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Seflor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  .Tens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mt. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Mirza  Ali  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmiind  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  Gregoire  Miehaesco. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  C&ar  Zumeta. 


No— 9. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

France: 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

The  vote  ia  80  for  anc 
agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  recommendation  concerning  unem¬ 
ployment.  The  recommendation  has  four  separate  items.  Unless 
there  is  request  for  a  division,  they  will  be  voted  for  en  bloc. 


South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

9  against.  The  recommendation  is  therefore 


No— None. 

* 

The  vote  is  92  for,  none  against.  The  recommendation  is  therefore 
agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  recommendation  concerning  reci¬ 
procity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  I  simply  wish,  before 
the  vote  is  taken  on  this  recommendation,  to  again  point  out,  as  I  did 
when  it  came  before  the  conference  in  another  form,  that  it  was  not 
on  the  agenda,  and  the  conference  is  not  competent  to  deal  with  it. 
I  agree  with  the  terms  of  the  recommendation.  My  objection  is  that 
the  conference  are  attempting  to  deal  with  a  matter  that  is  not  on 
the  agenda. 


184 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  79  for,  9  against.  The  recom¬ 
mendation  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  adoption  of  the  second  recommenda¬ 
tion.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote 
yes;  those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yxs — 61. 


Several  Delegates.  En  bloc. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  are  voting  en  bloc.  The  secretary  will 
call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes;  those  opposed  will 
vote  no. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  There  is  opposition  to 
their  being  voted  on  en  bloc. 

The  PRESIDENT.  If  there  is  a  single  opposition,  they  will  be 
voted  for  separately . 

They  will  be  voted  for  separately.  The  question  will  recur  on  the 
first  recommendation. 

The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes; 
those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 79. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  LAvie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell 
Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle 
Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mi  .  Adredo  Palomo  Rodr  iguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  (or  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldest 
Japan: 

Mr.  Eiklehi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  earlier. 
France: 

Mr.  Louis  Gufirin. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 
Greece: 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuztne. 


Japan— Continued. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Cast  berg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Ah  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowict. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  C&ar  Zumeta. 


Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 
Sweden: 

Senator  R.  G.  H.  von  Sydow. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  L6vie 
Canada: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  dl  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada 
Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 


Argentina: 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Great  Britain: 

Right.  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D-  S.  Marjoribanks. 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade 
Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg 
Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal 
Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


Peru: 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Sweden: 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  C&ar  Zumeta. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  61  for,  24  against.  The  recom¬ 
mendation  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  question  now  recurs  on  the  adoption  of  the  third  recom¬ 
mendation.  The  secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will 
vote  yes.  Those  opposed  will  vote  no. 


No— 9. 


No— 24. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


185 


[Roll  call.] 

Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Jus*>z. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Rt.  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart- Banning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Yr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrrni). 


Yes— 73. 

Italy — Continued. 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Seflor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G .  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  fbr  Mr 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franeiszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  Sjoborg. 

Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


Argentina: 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 
Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  earlier. 
Canada: 

Mr.  8.  R.  Parsons. 
France: 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 


No— 11. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  Grcgoire  Michaesco. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Sweden: 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  73  for,  11  against.  The  recom¬ 
mendation  is,  therefore,  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  adoption  of  the  fourth  recommendation. 
The  secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes; 
those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 83. 

Argentina:  Belgium: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil.  Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi.  Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino.  Mr.  Michel  LAsie. 


Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L4on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Mr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Ramon  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens 
Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 


Argentina: 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 
Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 


Netherlands — Continued. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Seflor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  lor  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franeiszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

No— 4. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Switzerland: 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


The  PRESIDENT.  _  The  vote  is  83  for,  4  against.  The  recom¬ 
mendation  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  question  now  recurs  on  the  draft  convention  concerning  unem¬ 
ployment. 

The  secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes; 
those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 88. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 
Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos,  Sampaio. 
Canada: 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 
Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 


Canada— Continued. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 


186 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Lgon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 


Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson 
Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania'  . 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford 
Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rulenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


No — 4. 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 
France: 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 


Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  88  for,  4  against.  The  conven¬ 
tion  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

The  question  recurs  on  the  draft  convention  limiting  the  hours  of 
work  in  industrial  undertakings  to  8  in  the  day  and  48  in  the  week. 

The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes; 
those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 82. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Michel  Ldvie). 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlo's  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 


Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodacz. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 
Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 
Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 


Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzfene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi 
Dr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto 
Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 


Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson 
Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda 
Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco 
Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

'  Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A. Erik  M.Sjdborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


No— 2. 

Canada:  Norway: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper.  Mr.  G.  Paus. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  82  for,  2  against,  and  1  absten¬ 
tion.  The  convention  is  therefore  agreed  to.  [Applause.] 

That  concludes  the  number  of  conventions  and  recommendations 
before  the  conference  for  this  afternoon,  with  the  exception  of  the 
convention  relative  to  maternity.  That  has  not  yet  been  distributed 
to  the  conference.  I  desire  to  know  what  the  wishes  of  the  con¬ 
ference  are  relative  to  remaining  here  for  the  consideration  of  that 
convention  later  on,  or  adjourning  until  to-morrow. 

Several  Members.  Adjourn. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Hudson  desires  to  make  a  statement  on 
behalf  of  the  drafting  committee. 

Mr.  Hudson  (legal  adviser).  Mr.  President,  the  convention  con¬ 
cerning  the  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth 
was  referred  to  the  drafting  committee  at  3  o’clock  this  afternoon. 
The  drafting  committee  had  prepared  a  revised  text  of  the  conven¬ 
tion  as  drawn  by  the  commission.  That  text  did  not  include  the 
amendments  which  were  adopted  to-day.  That  text  was  prepared 
in  the  form  of  a  corrected  printer’s  proof.  It  could  not  be  printed 
or  mimeographed  because  until  3  o’clock  no  action  had  been  taken 
by  the  conference.  I  can  assure  you,  however,  that  the  changes 
made  by  the  drafting  committee  do  not  work  any  change  in  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  draft  as  adopted  by  the  conference  at  3  o’clock.  If  you 
desire,  therefore,  to  vote  on  the  draft  adopted  by  the  conference, 
leaving  to  the  drafting  committee  the  permission  to  make  in  that 
draft  the  same  kind  of  changes  which  it  has  made  in  the  other  drafts 
which  you  have  already  adopted,  it  seems  to  me  that  action  can  be 
taken  this  afternoon.  However,  before  action  is  taken  it  will  be  nec¬ 
essary  for  the  drafting  committee  to  have  the  opinion  of  the  conference 
concerning  the  meaning  of  the  votes  which  were  taken  this  morning. 

Those  votes  are  in  some  respects  contradictory.  The  drafting 
committee  has  therefore  prepared  three  alternatives  to  place  before 
the  conference: 

1 .  The  draft  as  we  have  revised  it  and  as  it  was  left  by  the  com¬ 
mission. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


187 


2.  That  draft  with  the  first  amendment  which  was  proposed  by  the 
Spanish  delegation  this  morning,  and  which  was  accepted  by  the 
conference. 

3.  The  third  alternative  is  that  same  draft  with  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  and  accepted  by  the  conference. 

If  you  care,  therefore,  to  vote  upon  a  text  which  is  not  yet  defini¬ 
tive,  but  which  will  be  made  definitive  by  the  drafting  committee, 
we  will  place  before  you  the  alternatives  involved  in  your  amend¬ 
ments  this  morning,  and  a  decision  can  be  taken  as  to  which  of  the 
three  lines  the  conference  wishes  to  follow. 

[Mr.  Lazard  thereupon  addressed  the  conference  in  French,  in 
effect  the  same  as  the  statement  of  Mr.  Hudson.] 

Mr.  Hudson  (legal  adviser).  Mr.  President,  since  I  made  my 
statement  in  English  it  needs  to  be  corrected,  because  Mr.  Max 
Lazard  has  just  brought  in  the  mimeographed  copies  of  the 
drafting  committee’s  text  of  the  convention  without  the  amend¬ 
ments  passed  to-day.  We  are  able,  therefore,  to  place  before 
you  the  drafting  committee’s  text  of  the  convention  without  to¬ 
day’s  amendments.  We  will  then  place  before  you  the  two  other 
alternatives  involved  in  the  amendments  this  morning,  so  that  I 
think  if  you  will  wait  and  receive  these  copies  that  are  about  to  be 
distributed  we  can  take  definitive  action  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  We  are  going  to  distribute  these  texts 
and  you  will  be  able  to  vote  on  them.  I  have  here  only  the  French 
text.  The  English  text  is  on  the  way. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Carlier  is  recognized. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  The  great  difficulty  is  this:  The  con¬ 
ference  voted  this  morning  on  three  amendments  in  succession.  It 
voted  once  upon  one  understanding,  it  voted  a  second  time  with  an¬ 
other  understanding  of  the  matter,  and  it  voted  a  third  time  with 
the  same  understanding  as  the  first  time.  In  consequence,  we  are 
really  faced  with  the  difficulty  of  getting  a  practically  uniform  vote 
of  the  conference,  for  in  spite  of  all  the  texts  and  all  the  proposals 
you  submit,  the  resolutions  still  hold  good.  There  will  always  arise 
something  which  we  can  not  admit,  a  diversity  and  a  lack  of  uni¬ 
formity  against  which  you  can  do  nothing.  There  is  only  one  way 
of  getting  out  of  the  difficulty  and  that  is  to  put  the  amendments 
themselves  to  a  vote  again,  and  I  do  not  think  the  conference  has 
d  scided  to  enter  upon  that  path  at  present. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Rowell. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Will  it  be  necessary  for  the  conference 
to  meet  to-morrow  to  call  up  unfinished  business?  I  was  under  the 
impression  from  information  received  from  the  Secretary  General 
that  it  would  be  necessary. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  advised  that  it  will  be  necessary 
to  have  a  conference  to-morrow,  and  those  who  are  pressing  for  the 
consideration  of  this  motion  to-night  are  doing  so  because  they  fear 
that  there  will  not  be  a  quorum  present  to-morrow,  and  while  that 
quorum  might,  that  question  not  being  raised,  be  able  to  transact 
the  other  business  before  the  conference,  it  would  not  be  able  to 
transact  business  on  a  roll  call,  because  that  would  disclose  the  lack 
of  a  quorum,  which  I  understand  is  the  reason  why  they  are  desirous 
of  pressing  it  for  consideration  to-night. 

May  I  make  this  suggestion?  Rushing  an  important  question 
through  at  the  close  of  a  session  is  a  very  dangerous  precedent  to 
establish.  The  conference  ought  to  have  the  opportunity  of  ex¬ 
amining  this  matter  that  has  been  presented  to  us.  It  has  only 
been  presented  now.  If  there  is  going  to  be  present  to-morrow  a 
sufficient  number  to  constitute  a  quorum,  the  wise  course  for  the 
conference  to  pursue  would  be  to  defer  action  until  to-morrow.  I 
would,  therefore,  ask  those  who  expect  to  be  present  to-morrow 
to  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted,  so  that 
we  may  know  whether  they  will  constitute  a  quorum. 

Those  who  expect  to  be  present  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted. 


The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  governing  body  is  sitting 
next  door,  and  we  ought  to  know  who  of  the  governing  body  would 
be  present. 

[Count  taken.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  are  81  of  those  who  are  here  who  expect 
to  be  present,  besides  those  who  are  meeting  with  the  governing 
board.  That  is  more  than  a  quorum. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived  the  conference  will 
adjourn  until  10  o’clock  to-morrow  morning. 

[Whereupon,  at  6.03  o’clock  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken  to 
Saturday,  November  29,  1919,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.J 


The  following  is  the  list  of  delegates  present. 


Argentine: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Alejandro  Unsain  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Amerieo  Balino). 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Belgium.: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Annand  Julin  (substitute  for 
Mr.  Michel  I.evie). 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Fausto  Ferraz. 

Canada: 

Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (substitute  for  Hon. 

Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  P.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Gustavo  Munizaga  Varela. 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

China: 

Mr.  Yung  Kwai. 

Mr.  Lingoh  Wang. 

Colombia: 

Dr.  Carlos  Adolfo  Urueta. 

Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 

Mr.  Luis  Rosainz. 

Czecho-Slovakia : 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  F.  Hodaoe. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  Peder  Hedebol  (substitute  for 
Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen). 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 

Mr.  J.  Cueva  Garcia. 

Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gu6rin. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Rt.  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Miss  MacArthur  (substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulous. 


Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Haiti: 

Mr.  Charles  Moravia. 

India: 

Mr.  Atul  Chandra  Chatterjee. 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Mr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Senor  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Cast  berg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Ole  Lian). 

Mr.  Th.  G.  Thorsen. 

Panama: 

Mr.  Andres  Mojica. 

Mr.  Jorge  Luis  Paredas. 

Mr.  Frederico  Calvo. 

Mr.  Jose  Antonio  Zubieta. 

Mr.  J.  E.  Lefevre. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manual  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ah  Khan. 

Mirza  AU  Asghar  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franeiszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  J ozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan 
Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco, 

Salvador: 

Mr.  Salvador  Sol. 


188 


Serbs,  Croats  and  Slovenes: 
Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch. 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 
Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 
South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 
Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 
Mr.  William  Gemmill. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada. 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Mr.  J.  Gascon. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg 
Dr.  Gunnar  Huss. 


Sweden— Continued. 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 

Senator  G.  H.  von  Koch. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 


Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 
Venezuela 

Dr.  S.  A.  Dominici. 
Mr.  Cdsar  Zumeta. 


TWENTY-FIFTH  SESSION— SATURDAY,  NOVEMBER  29,  1919. 


The  conference  convened  at  10.15  o’clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  W.  B. 
Wilson,  president  of  the  conference,  presiding. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  conference  will  be  in  order.  The 
secretary  will  make  announcements. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  governing  body  decided  at 
a  further  meeting  yesterday  that  the  International  Labor  Office 
should  be  located  provisionally  in  London,  which  is  at  present  the 
temporary  seat  of  the  secretariat  of  the  League  of  Nations.  The 
president  of  the  governing  body  and  the  secretary  general  were 
requested  to  confer  with  the  provisional  director  with  a  view  to  the 
necessary  steps  being  taken  immediately  to  begin  the  formation 
of  the  office.  Until  further  notice  the  address  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  will  be  Sunderland  House,  Curzon  Street,  London,  W.  1. 
The  next  meeting  of  the  governing  body  will  take  place  in  Pans  on 
January  26,  1920. 

The  final  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  will  be  printed 
in  English  and  French  before  the  end  of  December.  Each  delegate 
will  be  furnished  with  a  bound  copy  for  his  personal  use,  and  each 
delegation  will  receive  through  its  Government  43  copies.  It  is 
also  proposed  to  place  the  record  on  sale  at  cost  price,  which  will  be 
approximately  $1.25  per  copy  bound  in  cloth  and  40  cents  per  copy 
bound  in  paper.  Applications  should  be  made  either  to  Mr.  Hugh 
Reid,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  Washington,  D.  C.,  or  to 
the  International  Labor  Office,  Sunderland  House,  Curzon  Street, 
London,  W.  1. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  order  of  business  this  morning  is  the 
consideration  of  the  draft  convention  concerning  the  employment 
of  women  before  and  after  childbirth.  There  seems  to  be  doubt  as 
to  what  the  action  of  the  conference  has  been  on  this  subject.  It  is 
necessary,  before  the  final  draft  be  disposed  of,  that  the  doubt  concern¬ 
ing  the  action  of  the  conference  be  cleared  up.  The  Chair  suggests 
that  a  vote  be  taken  first  upon  whether  the  draft  convention  shall 
include  industry,  commerce,  and  agriculture,  and,  in  the  event  of 
that  being  disposed  of  in  the  negative,  as  to  whether  it  shall  include 
industry  and  commerce,  and,  in  the  event  of  that  being  disposed  of 
in  the  negative,  then  on  the  original  proposition,  including  industry. 

Without  objection  that  course  will  be  pursued. 

The  Chair  hears  none. 

The  question  will  recur  upon  whether  the  convention  shall  include 
industry,  commerce,  and  agriculture.  The  secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

The  Chair  was  in  error  about  the  calling  of  the  roll  in  connection 
with  the  adoption  of  this  proposition. 

The  question  is  upon  whether  “industry,  commerce,  and  agricul¬ 
ture”  shall  be  included  in  the  draft. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  ask  that  the  roll  be  called  on  all  three 
votes. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  requires  20  members  to  demand  a  roll  call. 

The  secretary  will  count. 

[Count  taken.] 

There  is  a  sufficient  number.  The  roll  will  be  called.  The  sec¬ 
retary  will  call  the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes;  those  op¬ 
posed  will  vote  no. 


[Roll  call.] 

.  Yes— 30. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Clomeille  Mertens. 

Czecho  -Sovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Ldon  Jouhaux. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 

Guatemala: 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

No — 51. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  AH  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszck  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Nicolas  Veloz. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim 
Mr.  Jules  Carrier. 

Mr.  Michel  Ldvie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson)! 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armcnteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Louis  Gudrin. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart- Bunning. 
Guatemala: 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
India: 

Dr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


189 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  51  against  and  30  in  favor.  The 
amendment  is  therefore  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  now  recurs  upon  whether  the  draft  convention  shall 
include  industry  and  commerce. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  just  one  question.  Ilave 
not  all  the  conventions  so  far  adopted  by  the  conference  been  limited 
to  industry,  and  will  not  this  be  a  departure  in  principle  from  all  the 
conventions  so  far  adopted  by  the  conference? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  not  in  order  at  this  time,  as 
we  are  voting  and  not  discussing  the  substance  of  the  amendment. 

The  question  recurs  upon  amending  the  draft  to  include  industry 
and  commerce.  The  Chair  understands  that  the  roll  call  applies  to 
all  of  the  three  amendments  and,  therefore,  the  secretary  will  call 
the  roll.  Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes.  Those  opposed  will  vote  no. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes— 49. 


Argentina: 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 
Canada: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justii. 

Czech  o-Slovakia: 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mairnio. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Michel  L<5vie. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Finland: 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Bames. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  Gregoire  Miehaesco. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  C4sar  Zumeta. 

No— 41. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Eugene  CantacuzAne. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

India: 

Dr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Netherlands: 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 


Portugal: 

r.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 
r.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 


South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  is  49  for,  41  against,  1  abstention. 
The  amendment  is  therefore  agreed  to.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Edstrom. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  I  want  to  raise  the  question  if  on  this 
point  there  ought  not  to  be  a  two-thirds  majority,  because,  ladies 
and  gentlemen - 

Several  Delegates.  No! 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Edstrom  raises  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden)  (continuing).  Because  if  it  is  not,  the 
minority  will  vote  against  the  whole  convention  and  the  whole  con¬ 
vention  will  fall,  and  we  will  have  no  result  at  all.  Therefore,  I 
raise  the  point  if  this  ought  not  to  be  carried  by  a  two-thirds  majority. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  result 
of  this  vote  would  have  the  effect  of  defeating  the  forthcoming  vote, 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  parliamentary  procedure.  The 
amendment  you  have  just  voted  upon  is  in  exactly  the  same  position 
as  if  you  had  been  considering  the  report  of  the  committee  de  novo. 
It  stands  in  exactly  the  same  position  as  if  an  amendment  had  been 
offered  during  the  time  that  the  report  of  the  commission  was  under 
consideration;  and,  standing  in  that  position,  a  majority  vote  is  all 
that  is  necessary  to  put  it  into  the  draft.  After  it  has  been  placed 
in  the  draft  then  it  requires  a  two-thirds  majority  to  adopt  the  draft. 
The  point  of  order  is  not  well  taken. 

Mr.  MARIN  (Spain).  I  take  the  liberty  of  calling  your  attention 
to  the  point  which  has  just  been  raised.  As  regards  the  dif¬ 
ferent  questions  studied  by  the  conference,  when  the  reports  of 
the  committees  and  the  amendments  proposed  in  these  reports  were 
being  discussed,  some  delegates  voted  for  or  against,  which  did  not 
prevent  them,  when  it  was  a  question  of  general  approval  of  the  draft 
convention,  from  voting  in  the  affirmative.  We  are  in  an  analogous 
situation  to-day,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  what  we  have  just  done 
can  not  affect  the  final  outcome  of  the  draft  convention  which  will 
be  referred  to  the  drafting  committee. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  recurs  on  whether  or  not 
the  words  “or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance”  shall  be  stricken 
out  of  the  original  draft.  May  I  state  that  the  drafting  committee 
is  in  doubt  as  to  whether  the  draft  should  include  the  words  “  or  by 
means  of  a  system  of  insurance,”  or  whether  those  words  should  be 
left  out  and  the  compensation  paid  solely  by  the  Governments? 
The  drafting  committee  therefore  asks  that  the  conference  vote  on 
the  following  motion: 

Moved  that  the  words  “or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance’’  bo  deleted  from 
article  3. 


Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  In  both  cases  there  is  an  insurance 
system. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  might  we  have  article  3 
read?  The  English  copies  of  the  drafting  committee’s  report  have 
not  been  distributed  here.  We  received  the  French.  I  asked  for 
copies  of  the  English,  and  they  said  they  were  not  ready. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Paragraph  (c)  to  which  the  amendment 
applies — paragraph  (c)  of  article  3 — will  be  read  for  the  information 
of  the  conference.  The  entire  article  will  be  read. 

Mr.  Hudson  (legal  adviser).  The  drafting  committee’s  text  of 
article  3  is  as  follows:  “In  any  public  or  private  industrial  under¬ 
taking,”  by  reason  of  the  last  vote  we  now  add  the  words  “or 
commercial,”  so  it  will  read: 

In  any  public  or  private  industrial  or  commercial  undertaking  or  in  any  branch 
thereof  other  than  an  undertaking  in  which  only  members  of  the  same  family  are 
employed,  a  woman — 

(a)  Shall  not  be  permitted  to  work  during  the  six  weeks  following  her  confinement. 


190 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


( b )  Shall  have  the  right  to  leave  her  work  if  she  produces  a  medical  certificate 
stating  that  her  confinement  will  probably  take  place  within  six  weeks. 

(c)  Shall  while  she  is  absent  from  her  work,  in  pursuance  of  paragraphs  (o)  and 
(b),  be  paid  benefits  sufficient  for  the  full  and  healthy  maintenance  of  herself  and 
her  child  provided  cither  out  of  public  funds  or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance, 
the  exact  amount  of  which  shall  be  determined  by  the  competent  authority  in  each 
country,  and,  as  an  additional  benefit,  shall  be  entitled  to  free  attendance  by  a  doctor 
or  certified  midwife.  No  mistake  of  the  medical  adviser  in  estimating  the  date  of 
confinement  shall  preclude  a  woman  from  receiving  these  benefits  from  the  date  of 
the  medical  certificate  up  to  the  date  on  which  the  confinement  actually  takes  place. 

(d)  Shall,  in  any  case,  if  she  is  nursing  her  child,  be  allowed  half  an  hour  twice  a 
day  during  her  working  hours  for  this  purpose. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  that  the  words 
“or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance”  be  deleted  from  the  draft. 
Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes;  those  opposed  will  vote  no;  and  the 
secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  should  like  to  make  a  few  explana¬ 
tions  just  the  same,  unless  the  commission  on  drafting  makes  the 
decision  for  me. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  Mr.  President,  I  want  to  call  the  at¬ 
tention  of  the  Chair  to  the  fact  that  I  think  there  is  a  misunderstand¬ 
ing  here.  Mr.  Jouhaux  has  asked  to  be  recognized  to  give  some 
explanation  on  the  meaning  of  his  proposal .  He  has  not  been  recog¬ 
nized.  I  think  that  before  coming  to  a  vote  it  is  necessary  to  have 
the  explanation  of  Mr.  Jouhaux. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  I  should  like  to  say  a  word  on  that, 
Mr.  Chairman. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Barnes. 

Mr.  BARNES  (Great  Britain).  I  do  not  want  to  talk,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man,  unless  there  be  discussion.  What  I  want  to  say  is  that  if  there 
is  to  be  discussion  I  want  to  take  part,  and  I  want  to  put  something 
very  strongly  to  this  meeting  as  to  the  time  that  has  been  wasted 
upon  theoretical  speculation  instead  of  devoting  the  time  to  this 
yesterday. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  a  point  of  order.  When 
I  rose  to  ask  a  question  in  reference  to  one  of  the  other  votes  that  was 
being  put  to  the  conference,  I  understood  you  to  rule  that  it  was 
out  of  order,  because  I  assumed  that  the  ruling  was  that  we  were  to 
vote  instead  of  discuss.  There  was  to  be  no  discussion  on  these 
matters. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  point  of  order  is  well  taken. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  If  that  is  so,  then  we  must  vote  instead 
of  discuss. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  Mr.  President,  1  want  a  word,  too. 
If  there  will  be  any  discussion  I  want  to  speak,  too. 

The  PRESIDENT.  We  are  in  the  process  of  voting,  by  direction 
of  the  conference  itself,  and  further  discussion  would  not  he  in  ord(  r. 
We  will  take  a  vote  upon  the  question  before  the  house. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President.  I  beg  to  suggest 
that  this  vote  be  taken  by  show  of  hands. 

Mr.  JOUHAUX  (France).  I  do  not  wish  to  take  the  floor,  but  I 
do  wish  to  state  that  the  vote  on  which  we  are  going  to  take  a  stand, 
owing  to  the  interpretation  of  the  special  committee,  will  have  no 
value  for  those  voting  for  it,  because  they  do  not  understand  it.  I 
do  not  understand  it. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  will  determine  whether  or  not  there 
is  any  misunderstanding,  and  the  vote  will  be  taken.  The  vote  is 
on  the  motion  that  the  words  “or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance  ” 
be  deleted  from  article  3,  paragraph  (c).  Those  in  favor  of  the  motion 
will  vote  yes;  those  opposed  will  vote  no;  and  the  secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

[Roll  call.] 

Yes-8. 


Finland: 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 
Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Portugal: 

Mr.  Aliredo  Franco. 


Serbs, Croats, and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

South  Airica: 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 


No— 72. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Mr.  Hermeneglldo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Michel  L4vie. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde 
Finland: 

Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen. 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

France: 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gu4rin. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevtngne. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzfene. 
Guatemala: 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 
Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 


Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castbcrg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniezny. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjob'org. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  SyJow. 
Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  on  this  question  is  72  against,  8 
for,  and  12  abstentions.  The  motion  is  therefore  lost. 

Mr.  Baldesi  is  recognized. 

Mr.  BALDESI  (Italy — remarks  in  Italian).  I  wish  to  explain 
my  position.  I  have  abstained  from  voting  on  the  motion  which 
has  just  been  put  because  the  vote  was  given  under  conditions 
which  were  not  clear  and  obvious,  and  I  think  the  matter  was  not 
properly  understood  by  the  meeting;  and  I  wish  to  register  a  protest 
because  Mr.  Jouhaux  was  not  allowed  to  have  the  floor  to  give  ex¬ 
planations,  which  I  believe  would  have  made  the  position  clear  to 
all  the  delegates  present. 

Mr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  Mr.  President,,  I  believe,  on-the  con¬ 
trary,  that  the  Chair  has  acted  with  the  utmost  impartiality,  because 
while  the  Chair  did  not  allow  Mr.  Jouhaux  to  speak,  neither  did  it 
allow  other  speakers  to  have  the  floor.  Impartial  justice  has  been 
administered,  and  I  believe  that  the  assembly  should  support  the 
Chair. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  now  recurs  upon  the  adoption 
of  the  draft  convention  concerning  the  employment  of  women  before 
and  after  childbirth,  as  amended. 

Those  in  favor  will  vote  yes;  those  opposed  will  vote  no.  The 
secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

[Roll  call.] 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


191 


Y  ES— 67. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espll. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasl. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  L6vie. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  N arayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 


Japan: 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Mr.  Sveta  Frantz. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Mr.  Cdsar  Zumeta. 


No— 10. 


Canada: 

Mr.  Gerald  H.  Brown  (substitute  for 
Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson). 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Ecuador: 

Mr.  J.  Cueva  Garcia 
Finland: 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 


Japan: 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Norway: 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Sweden: 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  on  this  question  is  67  for,  10  against, 
and  11  abstentions.  The  convention  is  therefore  agreed  to.  [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

Mr.  Lazard  is  recognized,  on  behalf  of  the  drafting  committee. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  On  behalf  of  the  drafting  committee  I 
propose  the  following  motion: 

Resolved,  That  the  conference  express  the  wish  that  the  provisions  of  the  draft 
convention  adopted  by  the  conference  may  be  followed  in  the  legislation  of  all  in¬ 
dustrial  countries,  and  to  this  end  it  directs  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  to  communicate  the  texts  of  the  draft  conventions  to  all  the  governments 
of  the  States  which  are  not  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  and  to 
study  the  possible  methods  for  inducing  these  States  to  embody  the  provisions  of 
these  conventions  in  their  domestic  legislation. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  resolution  submitted 
by  the  drafting  committee,  which  has  just  been  read. 

As  many  as  favor  the  resolution  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep 
them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 


Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

The  resolution  is  agreed  to. 

Mr.  Fontaine  is  recognized. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Mr.  President,  ladies  and  gentlemen: 
On  behalf  of  the  governing  body,  which  met  yesterday,  I  have  a  pro¬ 
posal  to  make  to  you.  You  know  that  while  we  are  taking  these 
votes  the  peace  treaty  is  not  yet  ratified  and  that  difficulties  there¬ 
fore  arise  as  to  the  scope  of  our  votes.  Perhaps  measures  will  have 
to  be  taken  to  render  them  wholly  efficacious  when  the  treaty  is 
ratified.  With  this  in  view  the  governing  body  proposes  that  you 
invest  it  with  the  right  to  take  any  steps  that  may  be  necessary  and 
asks  you  to  support  the  following  resolution: 

Inasmuch  as  the  treaty  of  peace  has  not  yet  been  ratified,  the  conference 
authorizes  the  governing  body  to  take  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to 
render  the  resolutions  of  the  conference  effective. 

The  governing  body  is  unanimous  in  presenting  this  resolution  for 
your  consideration. 

Dr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  second  Mr. 
Fontaine’s  motion  on  behalf  of  the  governing  body.  I  have  entire 
confidence  in  the  governing  body,  and  I  hope  that  the  powers  of 
that  body  will  be  sufficient  in  the  future  to  assure  a  better  distribu¬ 
tion  of  the  places  on  it  for  the  Latin-American  and  all  the  non- 
European  countries. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  may  I  support 
very  strongly  the  proposal  of  the  delegate  from  Paraguay,  the  second 
proposal,  which  is  the  proposal  that  the  governing  body  should  take 
steps  to  have  further  representation,  or  rather  proper  representation, 
of  other  than  European  countries.  The  governing  body,  as  at 
present  constituted,  does  not,  in  my  opinion,  represent  in  any  way 
whatever  anything  but  European  countries,  and  without  such 
representation  I  should  not  be  prepared  to  give  the  confidence  to 
it  that  it  requires. 

Mr.  FRANCO  (Brazil).  I  have  a  few  observations  to  make  to 
the  conference.  These  observations  have  been  written  out,  and  in 
order  not  to  take  up  the  time  of  the  conference  I  shall  content 
myself  with  placing  them  in  the  hands  of  the  secretary  without 
reading  them. 

[The  statement  referred  to  is  as  follows:] 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MELLO  FRANCO. 

(Concurred  in  by  Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio.) 

In  order  to  cover  the  responsibility  for  my  votes  on  the  questions 
submitted  to  the  deliberations  of  the  conference  with  regard  to  the 
various  points  examined  in  the  reports  of  the  committee  on  unem¬ 
ployment,  I  am  obliged  to  state  the  reasons  which  induced  me  to 
vote  against  some  of  the  conclusions  proposed  by  the  reporters. 

The  texts  laid  before  the  conference  were  two — a  draft  convention 
and  two  draft  recommendations.  The  object  of  the  first  is  to  bring 
about  the  establishment  in  the  respective  countries  by  the  States 
which  are  signatory  and  adherent  of  a  system  of  free  public  em¬ 
ployment  exchanges,  under  the  control  of  some  central  authority. 

The  two  other  drafts  would  recommend  that  each  member  State 
of  the  permanent  organization  shall  take  the  necessary  measures 
to  prevent  the  creation  of  employment  agencies  where  fees  are 
paid  to  the  age'nt  or  to  the  concern,  and  on  the  other  hand  recom¬ 
mend  to  the  above-mentioned  States,  members  of  the  permanent 
organization,  that  the  collective  recruiting  of  workers  and  wage 
earners  in  the  territory  of  one  of  said  States  for  the  purpose  of  em¬ 
ployment  in  another  of  said  States  shall  be  permitted  only  upon 
agreement  between  the  States  concerned  and  upon  the  advice  of  the 
employers  and  workers  belonging  to  the  industries  concerned  in  each 
country.  In  Brazil  the  solicitation  and  employment  of  workers  is 
carried  on  under  the  direction  of  the  public  authorities  and  through 
the  medium  of  official  agents  established  either  by  the  Federal 
Government  or  by  the  State  Governments. 

The  national  office  of  labor  operates  as  part  of  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Industry  and  Commerce  of  the  union,  and  some  States 
themselves  even  maintain  the  same  arrangement,  since  the  Brazil- 


192 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


ian  political  system  gives  to  the  various  States  equal  competency 
in  the  organization  of  the  department  mentioned. 

However,  I  do  not  see  how  one  can  forbid  to  individuals  or  corpora¬ 
tions  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  maintain  and  to  carry  on  commer¬ 
cially  an  employment  agency  for  any  honest,  lawful  purpose,  since 
this  liberty  is  granted  them  in  full  by  explicit  clauses  in  our 
constitution. 

As  for  the  collective  recruiting  of  the  native  workers  of  one  State 
by  any  other  State  in  the  territory  of  the  former,  it  is  clearly  under¬ 
stood  that  that  can  not  be  done  except  with  the  agreement  of  both 
States,  since  otherwise  the  State  in  whose  territory  recruiting  should 
take  place  might,  by  the  use  of  its  sovereign  right,  prohibit  and  pun¬ 
ish  any  acts  tending  to  such  enrollment,  together  with  the  opera¬ 
tion  of  any  agency  whatsoever  for  the  enrolling  or  soliciting  of 
immigrants. 

However,  it  is  not  easy  to  understand  the  reasons  which  have 
inspired  the  requirement  set  forth  in  the  second  draft  recommenda¬ 
tion  as  to  a  preliminary  consultation  between  employers  and  work¬ 
ers  of  the  industries  concerned  in  each  country.  Why  this  con¬ 
sultation,  if  a  preliminary  agreement  between  the  Governments  is 
already  required? 

When  the  States,  through  their  legitimate  representatives  and 
agents,  have  agreed  that  natives  of  one  or  another  State  may  leave 
that  State  in  order  to  get  employment  in  the  territory  of  the  other, 
then  such  consultation  between  employers  and  workers  belonging 
to  the  industries  concerned  is  utterly  superfluous,  and  would  have 
no  significance,  but  on  the  other  hand  it  will  have  the  great  incon¬ 
venience  of  checking  the  currents  of  immigration  by  the  exaction  of 
a  condition  which  could  with  difficulty  be  realized  and  financed. 

My  vote  is  absolutely  against  this  intervention  of  private  individ¬ 
uals  in  affairs  which  are  within  the  province  of  the  Government,  and 
against  the  restrictions  which  proceed  from  previous  considerations. 

Much  more  serious  still  are  the  questions  raised  with  regard  to  the 
measures  proposed  by  the  committee  for  the  protection  of  foreign 
workers  out  of  employment. 

In  the  first  and  second  draft  resolutions  the  committee  proposed 
to  create  in  the  International  Labor  Office  a  special  department 
charged  with  all  the  questions  pertaining  to  the  migration  of  work¬ 
ers  and  the  situation  of  foreign  wage  earners,  and  also  proposed  that 
the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  constitute  a 
special  commission  charged  with  studying  and  proposing  the  neces¬ 
sary  measures  for  regulating  the  migration  of  workers  from  their 
native  country  and  for  protecting  the  interests  of  wage  earners 
resident  in  any  country  other  than  their  own. 

Now,  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
which  is  composed  of  24  members,  has  but  one  representative  from 
the  American  nations,  nations  which  are  particularly  the  ones  that 
receive  and  try  to  get  foreign  workers,  whose  collaboration  they  need 
for  the  development  of  their  vast  territory,  so  abounding  in  wealth 
of  every  kind,  but  so  lacking  in  population.  According  to  article 
393  of  the  Versailles  treaty,  the  governing  body  .of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  be  composed  of  24  representatives,  among  whom 
12  shall  represent  employers  and  workers  in  equal  number,  and 
the  last  12  shall  represent  the  Governments  of  the  States  members 
of  the  League  of  Nations. 

Among  these  last  12  members,  8  shall  be  appointed  by  those 
States  of  the  greatest  industrial  importance,  and  the  4  others  by 
those  States  designated  for  that  purpose  by  the  representatives  of 
the  different  Governments  at  the  conference,  without,  however, 
the  delegates  from  the  first  8  countries  being  able  to  vote  on  the 
choice  of  the  4  last. 

Witn  regard  to  the  classification  of  States  as  being  of  greater 
industrial  importance,  doubts  and  questions  may  be  raised,  and 
these  can  only  be  settled  by  the  League  of  Nations.  The  selection 
of  so  important  a  body  for  the  solution  of  this  eventual  conflict  of 
interests  shows  the  importance  in  which  the  nations  signatories  of 
the  peace  treaty  hold  the  organization  of  the  governing  body  of  the 
International  Labor  Office 


I  do  not  wish  to  plead  here  the  importance  of  the  industrial 
development  of  my  country,  and  neither  shall  I  invoke  the  fact 
that  we  entwined  our  flag  with  those  of  the  nations  who  waged  a 
war  against  the  militarism  of  the  former  powers  of  Central  Europe; 
but  speaking  under  the  impulse  of  a  sentiment  of  Pan  American 
fraternity,  I  protest  against  the  extraordinary  decision  by  which 
the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  which  is  com¬ 
posed  of  24  members,  is  to  have  23  chosen  among  the  European 
nations,  while  all  the  other  nations  here  represented  are  to  have 
but  one,  in  spite  of  their  great  interests  at  stake. 

The  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  among 
other  important  powers,  has  that  of  constituting  the  international 
commission  charged  with  facilitating  and  regulating  the  migration 
of  workers  from  their  native  country  and  with  protecting  the 
interests  of  wage  earners  residing  in  countries  other  than  their  own. 

Now,  at  the  bottom  of  this  question  is  one  of  the  vital  problems 
of  all  Latin  America,  the  question  of  popu'ating  the  rich,  immense 
territory  which,  throughout  the  whole  of  the  South  American  con¬ 
tinent,  awaits  the  activity  of  its  inhabitants  in  order  to  give  to  the 
world  the  most  effective  collaboration  in  the  development  of  pro¬ 
duction  and  the  consequent  increase  in  the  comfort  of  all  collectively. 

The  nations  of  America  can  not  willingly  accept  this  composition 
of  the  International  Labor  Office,  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  we, 
the  delegates  from  South  America,  have  supported  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Gemmill,  delegate  from  South  Africa,  who  proposed  an 
amendment  with  the  object  of  providing  that  the  representation 
of  the  European  countries  on  this  special  commission  shall  be 
one-half  of  the  commission,  which  means  equality  between  the 
nations  of  the  Old  World  and  the  nations  of  the  New  World 
in  this  commission. 

However,  I  must  still,  with  reference  to  this  question,  make  an 
observation  upon  the  method  which  was  followed  when  the  articles 
of  the  draft  were  voted  on.  The  procedure  of  the  conference,  con¬ 
trary  to  parliamentary  practice,  caused  a  vote  to  be  taken  on  Mr. 
Gemmill ’s  proposition  before  the  article  on  which  it  depended  was 
voted  upon;  whereas  the  method  which  should  have  been  followed 
was  to  vote  first  on  the  article,  without  the  amendment,  for  in  this 
way  the  non-European  delegates  would  have  had  the  more  radical 
recourse  of  refusing  all  of  article  3  in  limine.  The  amendment  of 
the  delegate  from  South  Africa  was  a  correction  of  the  article  in 
question,  the  wording  of  which  is  incompatible  with  the  fundamental 
rights  of  sovereign  nations;  the  non-European  delegates  could  not 
refuse  their  votes,  but  that  implied  an  acceptance  of  the  principle 
contained  in  the  article,  a  principle  which,  however,  they  intended 
to  reject  completely.  It  will  be  seen  how  the  inversion  of  the  good 
old  parliamentary  practices  in  numerous  assemblies  upsets  and 
sacrifices  the  votes  of  a  great  many  of  their  members.  Making  use 
of  the  right  conferred  on  me  by  the  peace  treaty,  I  voted  personally 
against  article  4  of  the  draft  resolution  dealing  with  the  fight 
against  unemployment,  because  the  text  voted  is  contrary  to  the 
sovereign  rights  of  each  State  and  attacks  the  constitutional  right  of 
Brazil. 

With  regard  to  the  questions  dealing  with  the  working  day  and  the 
other  questions  on  employment  of  women  and  children,  I  agreed  with 
the  greater  part  of  the  principles  approved,  making  allowances  for 
difference  in  climate,  in  customs,  in  manners,  in  economic  oppor¬ 
tunity,  and  in  individual  tradition,  according  to  the  statements  in 
article  427  of  the  peace  treaty. 

As  for  the  working  day  for  men,  I  think  that  we  ought  to  respect 
the  freedom  of  contract  and  independence  of  those  workers  who 
desire  to  contract  for  their  services  for  a  longer  day  and  for  more  gain. 

The  work  accomplished  by  the  conference  will  adapt  itself  in  its 
essential  points  to  the  present  state  of  Brazilian  legislation.  The 
conference  will  not  have  accomplished  a  work  of  disorganization, 
and  because  of  the  moral  authority  of  its  decisions  we  may  expect 
it  to  be  a  great  and  beneficial  influence  in  winning  over  the  hearts 
of  men  in  preparation  for  the  great  social  reforms  which  the  tragic 
events  of  the  war  have  brought  forth  at  this  hour. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


193 


We  must  regret  very  much  the  fact  that  the  great  American 
Nation,  she  who  has  rendered  the  world  so  many  sendees  in  the 
evil  days  just  finished  and  to  whom  my  own  country  is  bound  by 
the  oldest,  the  most  firm,  and  the  strongest  ties  of  friendship,  has 
not  taken  part  officially  in  the  conference. 

Mr.  POSADA  (Spain — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  second  the  wish 
expressed  by  the  delegate  from  Paraguay. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  would  like  to  suggest  to  Mr. 
Fontaine  that  he  withdraw  his  motion  until  such  time  as  a  motion 
to  be  moved  by  Mr.  Gemmill  has  been  discussed.  I  think  it  is 
necessary  that  that  motion  should  also  be  discussed  right  away  by 
this  conference,  in  order  to  clear  the  air  somewhat.  If  Mr.  Fontaine 
will  not  agree  to  postpone  consideration  of  his  motion  until  Mr. 
GeminiH's  motion  is  discussed,  then  I  think  this  conference  should 
clearly  understand  that  any  votes  accorded  to  him  in  support  of 
his  motion  in  no  way  indicate  the  confidence  of  this  conference  in 
the  constitution  of  the  governing  body. 

Mr.  FERRAZ  (Brazil).  Mr.  President,  I  ask  permission  to  in¬ 
sert  into  the  report  the  ideas  which  the  workers  of  Brazil  wish  to 
see  published  in  the  proceedings  of  the  conference.  These  ideas 
have  been  written  out  in  English  and  in  French,  and  I  ask  permis¬ 
sion  to  place  these  documents,  along  with  several  publications,  in 
the  hands  of  the  secretary  general. 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  is  not  apparent  that  the  matter  that  Mr. 
Ferraz  desires  to  have  inserted  in  the  record  is  germane  to  the 
question  before  the  house,  but  if  there  is  no  objection,  the  matter 
he  desires  in  the  record  will  be  inserted  immediately  following 
the  record  of  the  vote  upon  the  question  before  the  house. 

Is  there  any  objection?  The  Chair  hears  none,  and  it  will  be  so 
inserted. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  on  that  point 
might  I  ask  that  certain  objections  made  by  my  colleague,  repre¬ 
senting  the  employers  from  South  Africa,  concerning  the  governing 
body,  also  be  inserted  in  the  record.  It  was  understood  when 
they  were  handed  in  that  they  should  be  put  in  the  record,  but 
they  have  not  yet  appeared. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  reason  for  that  is  that  no 
record  has  been  printed. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  understand  I  have  the  assur¬ 
ance  that  they  will  appear. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  resolution 
presented  by  Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Rowell. 

Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  WThile  I  should  like  to  see  the  action 
which  Mr.  Fontaine  has  proposed  carried  out,  if  we  have  the  power 
to  do  so,  I  must  express  my  grave  doubt  as  to  the  power  of  this 
conference  to  delegate  its  duties  to  the  governing  body.  This 
conference  has  certain  defined  duties  under  the  provisions  of  the 
peace  treaty,  and  I  doubt — my  own  opinion  goes  beyond  a  doubt — 
our  power  to  delegate  those  duties  to  anybody  whatever,  and  that 
the  action  proposed  would  not  be  legally  effective.  I  should  like 
to  suggest  to  Mr.  Fontaine  that  he  should  add  to  his  proposal  a 
provision  whereby  this  conference  would  formally  adjourn  to  meet 
at  the  call  of  the  governing  body,  in  case  it  should  appear 
upon  further  consideration  there  is  no  power  to  do  what  is  now 
proposed  by  the  resolution.  This  conference  if  adjourned  might 
be  formally  reconvened  after  the  peace  treaty  goes  into  effect  for 
the  purpose  of  validating  the  action  taken  during  these  weeks. 
I  make  the  suggestion  with  a  view  of  guarding  against  the  failure 
of  the  conventions  we  have  adopted  by  reason  of  this  conference 
being  extralegal  and  held  before  the  peace  treaty  went  into  effect. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Mahaim. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  I  want  to  reassure  Mr.  Rowell  im¬ 
mediately,  that  the  formula  adopted,  which  consists  of  saying  that 
the  governing  body  is  authorized  to  take  any  necessary  measures  to 
render  the  resolutions  of  the  conference  effective,  covers  the  event 
of  its  being  necessary  to  convene  the  conference  again.  Conse¬ 
quent!}  that  is  covered  in  the  formula  of  the  resolution. 


Mr.  ROWELL  (Canada).  Mr.  President,  with  great  respect  to 
Prof.  Mahaim,  I  do  not  think  it  is  covered  in  the  formula.  If  this 
conference  formally  concludes  its  labors  and  ends,  there  is  no  power 
so  far  as  I  am  aware  to  reconvene  it.  You  would  have  to  constitute 
an  entirely  new  conference.  But  if  the  conference  does  adjourn 
to  meet  at  the  call  of  some  responsible  authority,  then  the  action 
might  be  taken  which  it  is  suggested  could  be  taken  by  the  gov¬ 
erning  body. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Gemmill. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  yesterday  I 
received  an  assurance  from  the  Chair  that  a  certain  motion  in  my 
name  would  come  up  this  morning.  Now,  I  could  move  that 
motion  as  au  amendment  to  Mr.  Fontaine’s  proposal,  but  I  do  not 
wish  to  do  so  and  complicate  it,  if  I  can  be  assured  that  my  motion 
is  coming  up  this  morning. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  can  not  give  any  assurance  that 
the  resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Gemmill  will  be  reached  for  con¬ 
sideration  by  the  conference.  The  only  thing  that  the  Chair  can 
say  in  that  connection  is  that  if  the  conference  continues  in  session 
long  enough  we  will  reach  the  consideration  of  his  motion. 

May  I  add,  further,  that  the  Chair  has  examined  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Gemmill  and  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  not  be  germane  to  the 
resolution  proposed  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  and  consequently  would  not 
be  in  order  as  an  amendment. 

The  question  is  on  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  presented  by 
Mr.  Fontaine. 

As  many  as  favor  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  Mr.  President,  may  the 
resolution  not  be  read,  as  there  was  some  doubt  as  to  what  was  the 
actual  resolution  we  were  voting  on. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Hands  down.  The  resolution  will  be  read 
again  for  the  information  of  the  conference. 

[The  resolution  was  read  as  follows:] 

Inasmuch  as  the  treaty  of  peace  has  not  yet  been  ratified,  the  conference  authorizes 
the  governing  body  to  take  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to  render  the 
resolutions  of  the  conference  effective. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  on  a  matter  of 
procedure.  I  desire  to  move  that  the  conference  proceed  with  the 
next  item  that  is  proposed  for  the  sitting.  My  reason  for  doing  it 
is  that  you,  as  chairman,  in  your  statement,  have  given  no  assurance 
to  this  conference  that  the  promise  given  by  Mr.  Barnes,  when  he 
presided  over  yesterday  morning’s  session,  will  be  carried  out,  and 
the  motion  standing  in  Mr.  Gemmill’s  name  will  be  discussed.  I 
am  moving  that  we  proceed  with  the  next  item  on  the  program  for 
the  sitting,  in  order  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  on  the  Chair  to  have 
that  motion  of  Mr.  Gemmill’s  discussed,  and  I  would  suggest  that 
after  Mr.  Gemmill’s  motion  is  discussed,  and  only  then,  should  the 
conference  agree  to  give  any  authority  or  any  power  of  any  kind  to 
the  governing  body. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  should  like  to 
second  Mr.  Crawford’s  amendment,  and  in  doing  so  I  should  like  to 
suggest  to  the  conference  that  it  is  most  inadvisable  to  allow  the 
impression  to  get  about  that  there  is  a  desire  to  balk  discussion  on 
the  question  of  the  position  of  the  governing  body. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  in  doubt  as  to  the  parliamen¬ 
tary  significance  of  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Crawford  as  to  whether 
the  intent  of  the  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  is  to  postpone  the  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  question  before  the  house,  or  is  not  a  question  of  post¬ 
ponement. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  It  is  desired  to  postpone  con¬ 
sideration.  I  will  alter  the  motion  if  my  seconder  will  agree  to 
postpone  consideration  of  the  question. 

Mr.  JUSTIZ  (Cuba — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  wish  to  call  the  at¬ 
tention  of  the  conference  to  the  very  great  importance  of  the  state¬ 
ments  made'  by  the  delegate  from  Paraguay,  not  only  from  the  point 
of  view  of  international  relations,  but  also  from  the  point  of  view  of 


146865° — 19 - 13 


194 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


the  effectiveness  of  the  organization  which  is  being  created .  I  believe 
that  this  subject  should  not  be  turned  down  on  any  account,  but  that 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Latin-American  countries  on 
a  previous  occasion  submitted  this  very  question  to  the  confer¬ 
ence,  and  that  it  has  now  been  brought  forward  by  the  represen¬ 
tatives  of  South  Africa,  and  should,  therefore,  meet  with  the 
consideration  of  this  conference,  in  order  that  an  unfavorable  im¬ 
pression  may  not  be  created. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Craw¬ 
ford  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  before  the  house. 

As  many  as  favor - 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  beg  to  request 
a  record  vote,  and  I  will  ask  you  if  the  necessary  number  of  support¬ 
ers  are  present  for  my  proposal.  It  may  be  the  only  opportunity  of 
indicating  a  certain  feeling  that  exists  on  the  part  of  members  of 
this  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Crawford  asks  for  a  record  vote.  Are 
there  a  sufficient  number?  The  secretary  will  count. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  The  purpose  of  the  vote  which  we 
have  asked  is  simply  to  prevent  our  sacrificing  all  the  work  of  the 
present  conference.  This  conference  is  about  to  adjourn  before 
the  treaty  has  been  ratified.  We  may  have  to  proceed  with  some 
formality,  such,  for  example,  as  convening  the  conference  again, 
in  order  to  carry  the  work  of  this  conference  to  a  conclusion. 

The  governing  body  is  not  asking  a  vote  of  confidence,  as  it  con¬ 
siders  that  by  the  very  fact  of  its  election  it  has  the  confidence  of  this 
assembly.  It  is  only  trying  to  do  its  duty.  It  is  not  opposed  to 
having  any  other  motions  discussed  afterwards,  nor  is  it  opposed  to 
discussion  of  the  composition  of  said  governing  body.  It  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  not  closing  the  conference  before  taking  the  necessary  meas¬ 
ures  for  putting  into  effect  matters  you  have  spent  a  month  voting 
on.  If  you  do  not  vote  for  this  motion,  what  will  happen  is  this— 
you  will  have  held  a  month’s  conference  to  no  purpose. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Crawford  asks  for  a  record  vote.  As 
many  as  are  in  favor  of  taking  a  record  vote  will  raise  their  right 
hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  necessary  number  of  votes  have  been  given.  The  question 
is  on  the  motion  to  postpone.  As  many  as  favor  the  motion  to  post¬ 
pone  will  vote  yes ;  those  opposed  will  vote  no ;  and  the  secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  Those  who  are  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Crawford’s  motion  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  M.  Fontaine’s 
motion  will  reply  yes;  those  who  are  against  Mr.  Crawford’s 
motion  will  say  no. 

[Roll  call.] 


Yes— 33. 


Brazil: 

Mr.  Aframo  de  Mello  Franco. 
Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czechoslovakia: 1 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Ellzalde. 
France: 

Mr.  Won  Jouhaux. 

Greece: 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprlnopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoeehea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 


India: 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Dr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Ludevit  Peritch. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 


1  There  is  clearly  an  error  here,  as  the  same  delegates  vote  both  tor  and  against 
the  same  motion.  The  only  records  in  the  possession  of  the  editor  show  the  vote 
as  here  given.  Ed.] 


Spain: 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 


Venezuela: 

Mr.  C4sar  Zumeta. 
Dr.  S.  A.  Dominici. 


No— 53. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  CorneilleMertens. 

Mr.  Armand  Julin  (substitute  tor 
Mr.  Michel  L6vie). 
Czecho-Slovakia: 1 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  MattiPassivuori. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Great  Britain: 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 


Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Serbs,  Croates,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  S.  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Hermann  I.indqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Ilg. 


The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  vote  is:  For  the  motion,  33; 
against,  53;  abstentions,  7. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  to  postpone  is  therefore  not 
agreed  to. 

The  question  is  now  upon  the  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Fon¬ 
taine. 

The  Chair  understands  that  Mr.  Fontaine  desires  to  include  in  Mb 
resolution  the  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  Rowell.  Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  In  order  to  satisfy  Mr.  Rowell, 
as  he  considers  our  formula  not  comprehensive  enough,  and  as  not 
investing  the  governing  body  with  enough  authority,  we  propose 
to  add  the  following: 

Therefore,  when  this  conference  adjourns  to-day,  it  adjourns  leaving  it  at  the  dis¬ 
cretion  of  the  governing  body  to  reconvene  the  present  meeting  or  to  declare  it  closed, 
as  may  be  deemed  advisable. 

Mr.  PARSONS  (Canada.).  May  we  have  the  whole  resolution  read? 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  resolution  as  a  whole  will  now  be  read. 
The  resolution  as  it  will  now  be  will  be  read. 

Inasmuch  as  the  treaty  of  peace  has  not  yet  been  ratified,  the  conference  author¬ 
izes  the  governing  body  to  take  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  to  render  the 
resolutions  of  the  conference  effective.  Therefore,  when  this  conference  adjourns 
to-day,  it  adjourns  leaving  it  at  the  discretion  of  the  governing  body  to  reconvene  the 
present  meeting  or  to  declare  it  closed,  as  may  be  deemed  advisable. 

Dr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  For  what  purpose  does  the  delegate  from 
Paraguay  rise? 

Dr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay) .  To  ask  some  explanations  as  regards  the 
wording.  The  motion  that  I  made  did  not  amend  the  motion  made  by 
Mr.  Fontaine,  but  is  simply  a  supplement  for  the  purpose  of  investing 
the  governing  body  with  full  power  to  revise  its  own  composition. 

Mr.  MAHAIM  (Belgium).  But  that  is  contrary  to  the  peace 
treaty. 

1  See  foot  note  first  column. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


195 


Dr.  GOND11A  (Paraguay).  No,  what  is  contrary  to  the  peace 
treaty  is  that  distribution  of  seats  on  the  governing  body  should 
not  be  equal  among  all  continents. 

Dr.  ARMENTEROS  (Cuba).  Mr.  President,  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  motion  of  the  representative  from 
Paraguay,  seconded  by  the  representative  from  Cuba,  the  Chair  un¬ 
derstands,  has  to  do  with  the  composition  of  the  governing  board; 
that  he  proposes  to  give  to  the  governing  board  the  power  to  change 
its  own  composition. 

That  motion  is  not  germane  to  the  resolution  before  the  house  and 
would  not  at  this  time  be  in  order. 

The  question  is  on  the  resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Fontaine. 

As  many  as  favor  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Fontaine  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Down.  Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Dr.  VARELA  (Uruguay).  I  voted  against  the  proposal  of  Mr. 
Fontaine  because  I  do  not  consider  that  the  governing  body  is 
fairly  representative  of  this  assembly.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  was  73  for  the  motion  and  6 
against.  The  motion  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

STATEMENT  OF  DB.  FERRAZ. 

[The  statement  of  Dr.  Ferraz  referred  to  above,  and  the  insertion 
of  which  was  directed  at  the  end  of  the  above  vote,  was  as  follows:] 

[Interview  given  by  Dr.  Fausto  Ferraz,  representative  of  the  Brazilian  workingmen 

in  the  Labor  Congress  to  “A  Razao,”  the  organ  of  the  working  classes  of  Rio  de 

Janeiro,  on  the  occasion  of  his  departure  on  November  3  last.) 

Dr.  Fausto  Ferraz,  who  is  a  representative  of  the  State  of  Minas 
Geraes  in  the  Federal  Congress,  is  one  of  the  few  who  have  made  a 
study  of  social  problems.  He  goes  to  the  labor  conference  with  the 
intention  of  defending  the  rights  of  the  working  classes  to  the  best  of 
a  is  ability,  having  in  view  the  clauses  of  the  peace  treaty. 

“I  consider,”  said  Dr.  Ferraz,  “my  mission  the  most  difficult  I 
have  ever  undertaken  because  after  the  hecatomb  of  the  war,  which 
turned  upside  down  and  disturbed  everything  in  the  material  and 
intellectual  life  of  the  people,  the  organization  which  it  is  proposed 
to  create  for  establishing  rules  for  settling  labor  disputes  and  improv¬ 
ing  labor  conditions  opens  so  vast  a  horizon  for  the  nations  that  it 
is  onlj  given  to  the  privileged  intelligence  to  see  far  enough  to  be 
able  to  appreciate  the  part  to  be  played  for  the  fulfillment  of  the 
mission  intrusted  to  me. 

“I  am  inspired  more  by  good  will  than  by  an\  knowledge  I  have 
on  the  subjects  which  will  be  discussed  in  the  conference  where 
humanity  will  surely  be  represented  by  the  greatest  authorities  in 
modem  sociology.  However,  if  wanting  in  competence,  I  shall  not 
be  wanting  in  ardor  and  sympathy,  in  defending  and  fighting  for 
the  rights  which  the  peace  treaty  has  emphasized. 

“Certainly  the  new  status  of  labor  looking  forward  to  universal 
peace,  which  must  be  based  on  social  justice,  will  be  carefully 
considered,  studied,  debated,  and  be  the  subject  of  legislation  by 
all  nations.  It  is  a  fact  that  everywhere  are  to  be  found  unjust  labor 
conditions,  and  even  hurtful  to  human  dignity,  resulting  in  misery 
and  privation  to  millions  of  individuals  who  are  living  outside  of 
the  social  community,  for  whom  justice  has  been  merely  an  abstract 
idea,  an  Utopia  which  does  not  console,  and,  being  very  ambiguous, 
rather  irritates  and  revolts,  causing  subversive  ideas  which  tend  to 
tear  away  the  world’s  axis  from  the  hinges  of  peace  and  order,  to 
cast  it  into  the  unknown,  to  the  abyss  of  social  war,  to  the  exterminat¬ 
ing  fight  between  capital  and  labor. 

“These  two  factors — capital  and  labor — can  not  be  irreconcilable 
enemies  unless  the  world  is  to  fall  into  pieces  and  civilization  fall 
back  into  outer  darkness  and  confusion. 

“The  peace  treaty  in  part  13,  considering  that  universal  peace  and 
harmony  are  in  danger  because  of  the  dissatisfaction  prevailing 
among  individuals,  arising  from  the  misery  and  privations  of  some, 
to  the  advantage  of  others,  from  the  want  of  equity  and  justice  in 


recompensing  labor — factor  as  it  is  of  capital,  and  without  which  the 
latter  can  not  increase — proposes  as  one  of  the  primary  ends  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  the  organization  of  labor  throughout  the  world  for 
the  purpose  of  fixing  the  working  hours,  days,  and  weeks;  a  wage 
that  will  assure  proper  living  conditions;  protection  of  the  workmen 
against  sickness  and  accidents  resulting  from  their  work;  protection 
of  children,  minors,  and  women;  pensions  for  the  aged  and  invalids; 
defense  of  the  interests  of  workingmen  while  abroad;  the  affirma¬ 
tion  of  the  right  of  organization;  the  organization  of  professional  and 
technical  teaching,  and  other  analogous  measures. 

“It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  many  problems  will  be  debated 
and  that  there  will  be  many  final  conclusions  arrived  at  for  the 
benefit  of  humanity  and  harmonizing  the  relations  between  those 
factors  representing  the  wealth  of  the  people — labor  and  capital. 

“The  contracting  parties  to  the  peace  treaty,  considering  that  the 
failure  to  adopt  measures  or  working  rules  really  humanitarian, 
created  obstacles  to  the  efforts  of  other  nations  willing  to  improve 
the  lot  of  their  people  within  their  own  territory,  agreed  to  found  a 
permanent  organization  for  the  realization  of  that  program,  and  for 
this  purpose  there  is  being  held  in  Washington  the  first  general 
conference.  There  will  be  created  an  international  labor  depart¬ 
ment  under  the  direction  of  an  administrative  council  composed  of 
24  persons,  of  whom  12  will  be  Government  representatives,  6  will 
be  elected  by  delegates  to  the  conference  representing  employers, 
and  6  by  delegates  representing  employees.  It  is  a  beginning  to¬ 
ward  an  understanding. 

“This  permanent  organ  created  by  the  peace  treaty  represents  a 
victory  and  will  unquestionably  be  an  open  door  to  all  claims 
against  social  injustice  and  the  misery  and  privations  resulting  from 
bad  labor  conditions.  This  does  not  impede  the  laboring  classes 
of  each  nation  from  organizing  for  their  legitimate  defense,  estab- 
ishing  trade-unions  and  political  parties  to  participate  in  the 
administration  and  legislative  sphere  within  the  territory  of  the 
State  to  which  they  belong. 

“In  my  opinion  the  nations  that  unite  in  defense  of  an  ideal  of 
justice  must  look  with  approval  upon  and  even  promote  the  creation 
of  associations  for  defense  of  the  workingman.  The  principle  of 
organized  trade-unionism  is,  therefore,  entirely  harmonious  with 
the  noble  and  elevated  objects  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

“The  exploitation  of  the  labor  of  the  working  classes,  if  there  be 
no  moderating  power  to  prevent  misery  and  privations,  will  result 
in  a  civil  war  more  violent  and  productive  of  more  hatred  than  any 
arising  from  political  passions. 

“I  am  convinced  that  the  most  humanitarian  solution  of  the 
problem,  and  the  one  most  productive  of  allaying  unrest,  would  be 
that  which  would  give  the  laborer  an  interest  in  the  profits  resulting 
from  his  work.  Indeed,  the  peace  treaty  with  great  wisdom  pro¬ 
claims  that  labor  must  not  be  considered  as  merchandise  or  an  article 
of  commerce.  It  must  be  dignified  with  and  be  one  with  capital; 
it  must  live  with  and  give  life  to  capital;  it  must  increase  the  pro¬ 
ductive  capacity  and  therefore  the  well-being  of  humanity;  and  be 
properly  recompensed.  According  to  Lincoln,  neither  capital  nor 
labor  should  be  held  to  be  the  superior  in  the  attainment  of  the 
common  object — the  perfection  of  man. 

“I  am  proud  of  my  country.  I  have  the  most  absolute  faith  in 
its  future.  I  fully  believe  in  the  outcome  of  the  energy  and  intelli¬ 
gence  of  Brazilians  and  with  their  virile  optimism  and  our  unparal¬ 
leled  natural  resources.  I  carry  with  me  great  hopes  of  better  days 
for  Brazil  and  for  humanity. 

“I  had  occasion  to  exchange  ideas  with  representatives  of  over 
30,000  workingmen  in  Rio  de  Janeiro,  and,  as  I  am  in  directcontact 
with  the  working  classes  and  have  the  help  of  their  organ,  I  feel 
that  I  can  accept  with  tranquillity  the  honorable  mission  with  which 
I  have  been  invested.  ” 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Gemmill. 

Mr.  GEMMILL.  Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  move  on  a  point  of 
procedure  that  the  motion  standing  in  my  name  in  regard  to  the 


196 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


composition  of  the  governing  body  be  now  taken.  In  doing  so  I 
wish  to  state  that  I  have  no  intention  of  speaking  on  it;  I  merely  wish, 
if  the  conference  agrees,  to  have  a  record  vote  taken  on  that  expres¬ 
sion  of  opinion,  and  I  therefore  move*  in  order  that  it  may  come  up, 
that  it  come  now. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Gemmill  moves  that  the  conference 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  standing  in  his  name. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Castiglione. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  respectfully  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  this  morning  each  one  of  us  has  received  a  bulletin  in 
which  there  is  a  program  for  this  morning’s  session.  In  this  bulletin 
the  first  thing  to  be  treated  is  the  agenda  for  1920.  I  raise  this  point 
of  order,  that  before  treating  any  other  business  we  discuss  the  agenda 
for  1920. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  point  of  order  made  by  Mr.  Castiglione 
would  be  sustained  in  the  event  of  there  being  no  motion  before  the 
house,  but,  while  the  conference  has  determined  upon  an  agenda 
for  its  own  guidance,  it  does  not  thereby  tie  its  hands  so  that  it  can 
not  change  that  agenda,  and  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Gemmill 
would,  if  carried,  simply  change  the  agenda  and  consequently  the 
motion  would  be  in  order,  if  seconded. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  beg  to  second  it,  Mr.  Chair¬ 
man. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Gemmill,  that  the  resolution  standing  in  his  name  be  brought  before 
the  conference  for  its  consideration.  Those  in  favor  of  bringing  this 
resolution  before  the  conference  at  this  time  will  raise  their  right 
hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  vote  on  this  question  is  54  for  and  24  against.  The  motion  is 
therefore  carried,  and  the  resolution  standing  in  Mr.  Gemmill’s 
name  is  before  the  conference. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  I  have  already 
stated  that  there  is  no  intention  on  my  part,  and  I  think  also  on  the 
part  of  those  who  signed  this  resolution,  to  delay  the  conference  in 
any  way.  We  are  only  anxious  to  get  the  thing  brought  forward  to 
the  members  of  the  conference  to  record  their  views  on  the  extraor¬ 
dinary  position  of  20  members  out  of  24  of  the  governing  body, 
representing  a  small  part  of  the  work,  being  representatives  of 
European  countries,  and  I  have  pleasure,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  pre¬ 
senting  the  resolution  standing  in  my  name. 

That  this  conference  expresses  its  disapproval  of  the  composition  of  the  governing 
body  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  inasmuch  as  no  less  than  20  of  the  24  mem¬ 
bers  of  that  body  are  representatives  of  European  countries. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Gemmill  to  adopt  the  resolution. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  just  wanted 
to  say  one  word.  I  would  like  to  appeal  to  the  representatives  of 
European  countries  to  support  this  resolution,  because,  if  they  expect 
to  make  a  success  of  this  conference  and  make  its  conventions  uni¬ 
versally  applicable  and  expect  to  win  the  trust  and  the  confidence 
of  other  than  European  countries,  then  they  should  in  their  hearts 
desire  that  there  should  be  a  better  distribution  of  the  members  of 
the  governing  body;  and,  if  they  feel,  as  they  must  feel,  that  the 
distribution  of  members  of  the  governing  body  amongst  the  various 
countries  should  be  more  equitable  than  it  is,  then  they  must  nec¬ 
essarily  vote  for  the  motion.  If  they  vote  against  the  motion,  then 
it  will  indicate  that  they  are  desirous  that  the  European  countries 
should  dominate  the  work  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 
[Applause.] 

That  is  exactly  the  position.  I  have  just  one  more  suggestion. 
The  representative  from  Paraguay  endeavored  to  move  a  resolution 
a  little  while  ago.  Well,  he  may  not  succeed  in  having  it  put  before 
the  conference,  but  I  trust  the  governing  body  will  listen  to  his  sug¬ 
gestion,  and  if  this  conference  passes  this  vote,  as  I  trust  it  will,  then 


the  governing  body  will  be  required  to  listen  to  his  suggestion,  and 
that  is  this:  That  the  governing  body  itself  consider  some  recon¬ 
stitution  of  itself.  It  is  quite  in  order  for  any  member  of  the  govern¬ 
ing  body  to  resign  as  a  member  of  the  governing  body,  and  the 
governing  body  in  the  terms  of  the  peace  treaty  has  the  right  to  fill 
any  vacancies,  and  if  representatives  of  European  countries  resign 
from  the  governing  body  it  will  thus  give  an  opportunity  to  the  gov¬ 
erning  body  to  elect  representatives  of  outside  countries  and  so 
equalize  and  render  more  equitable  the  distribution  of  seats  on  the 
governing  body.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  I  speak  for  myself  personally  and  not 
for  the  governing  body.  The  governing  body  was  appointed  by  the 
conference,  the  employers  by  the  employers’  group,  the  workers  by 
the  workers’  group,  and  the  Government  delegates  were  appointed 
according  to  the  stipulations  of  the  covenant  which  gave  birth  to 
this  conference. 

I  do  not  believe  that  any  one  has  it  in  mind — in  any  case  it  is  cer¬ 
tainly  not  in  my  mind — to  consider  the  articles  of  our  constitution 
concerning  the  election  of  the  governing  body  as  perfect  and  requir¬ 
ing  no  changes.  Neither  do  I  think  that  it  would  be  advantageous 
that  each  continent  should  be  assigned  any  logical  part  in  the  make¬ 
up  of  the  body.  I  merely  wish  to  indicate  that  when  examining  this 
question  account  must  be  taken  of  the  two  important  facts  which  I 
submit  to  the  consideration  of  our  colleagues  from  other  continents. 

The  first  of  these  facts  is  that  as  the  seat  of  the  League  of  Nations 
has  been  placed  at  Geneva,  and  as  the  governing  body  is  going  to  meet 
practically  every  two  months,  according  to  my  understanding,  it  is 
important,  in  order  to  expedite  matters,  to  have  a  fairly  large  number 
of  members  on  the  governing  body  who  do  not  live  at  too  great  a  dis¬ 
tance,  so  as  to  insure  a  sufficient  number  of  members  at  the  meetings 
of  the  governing  body.  For  that  reason  it  is  perhaps  unwarranted, 
when  it  is  purely  a  question  of  administration,  to  give  predominance 
to  the  question  of  nationality. 

In  the  second  place,  some  of  our  colleagues  seem  to  think  that  all 
countries  have  interests  of  equal  importance  in  this  conference.  I 
wish  to  observe  that  with  all  due  consideration  for  the  sovereignty  of 
States,  groups  of  several  countries  not  having  any  extended  industry 
should  not  have  a  predominant  influence.  These  are  questions  to  be 
carefully  weighed  and  examined.  Consequently  it  is  possible, 
though  premature,  to  state  that  the  composition  of  the  governing 
body  is  unfair. 

In  short,  I  am  in  no  way  opposed  to  having  the  question  of  reor¬ 
ganization  of  the  governing  body  looked  into,  nor  to  specifications 
being  made  to  safeguard  the  representation  of  all  continents,  but  the 
terms  of  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Gemmill  are  such  that  although  I 
agree  with  him  fundamentally  I  can  not  vote  for  his  proposal. 

Mr.  MAH  AIM  (Belgium).  I  move  the  closure. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  I  second  the  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  closure  has  been  moved  by  Prof. 
Mahaim. 

Mr.  REES  (Canada).  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  a  question? 

The  PRESIDENT.  It  will  depend  altogether  on  whether  the 
question  is  in  opposition  to - 

Mr.  REES  (Canada),  interrupting.  I  will  just  state  it  very  briefly, 
Mr.  Chairman.  The  point  is  this:  Is  it  an  established  point  that  this 
board  is  going  to  meet  every  two  months,  or  not? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Well,  that  is  debate. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  1  understand  one 
speech  against  the  closure  is  permitted. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  is  one  speech  permitted  against  clos¬ 
ure.  Mr.  Gemmill  is  recognized  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  GEMMILL  (South  Africa).  Mr.  President,  when  I  moved 
this  motion  1  stated  that  I  did  not  intend  to  make  a  speech  on  it, 
and  consequently  1  did  not  give  the  reasons  in  favor  of  the  motion 
which  otherwise  I  would  have  given.  Mr.  Fontaine  has  now  put 
forward  certain  arguments  against  the  motion  which,  to  my  mind, 
are  easily  rebutted;  and  if  the  closure  is  passed,  then,  through  my 
consideration  for  the  conference  at  the  beginning,- 1  am  unable  to 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


197 


reply  to  these  points.  That  is  the  reason  why  I  consider  it  unfair 
to  move  the  closure  until  the  mover  of  the  motion  has  a  chance  to 
reply  to  the  argument. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  to  close  de¬ 
bate.  There  can  be  no  further  discussion. 

Mr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay).  As  one  speaker - 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  can  be  no  further  discussion. 

Mr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay).  As  one  speaker  has  already  been  rec¬ 
ognized  by  the  Chair,  I  consider  that  I  am  also  entitled  to  speak,  and 
I  ask  to  be  recognized. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (§outh  Africa).  A  point  of  order.  I  under¬ 
stand  the  mover  of  the  closure  agreed  to  withdraw  his  motion  to 
allow  Mr.  Gemmill  an  opportunity  to  reply. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  has  heard  of  no  such  arrangement, 
and  while  the  Chair  desires  to  be  courteous  to  everybody,  as  a  matter 
of  course — that  is  part  of  his  business — he  can  do  nothing  else  but 
follow  the  motions  that  are  presented  for  consideration  and  enforce 
the  rules  impartially.  There  has  been  one  person  already  heard  in 
opposition  to  the  closure,  and  consequently  the  Chair  is  not  in  a 
position  to  recognize  Mr.  Gondra  for  that  purpose.  The  question  is 
on  the  motion  to  close  debate. 

As  many  as  are  in  favor  of  closing  debate  will  raise  their  right 
hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands  and  keep  them  raised 
until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  vote  on  this  question  is  43  for  and  36  against.  The  motion 
to  close  debate  is  therefore  agreed  to. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  Mr.  President. 

The  PRESIDENT.  For  what  purpose  does  the  gentleman  rise? 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  Just  to  ask  the  Chair  if  he  will  allow 
me  to  make  a  suggestion  on  the  vote?  I  would  like  to  move  that 
the  motion  be  divided  into  two  parts,  and  that  the  votes  be  taken 
separately  on  the  first  and  second  parte.  The  first  part  ends,  “said 
article  393,”  and  the  second  part  begins  by  the  words  “by  laying 
down.” 

The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  That  is  not  the  right  motion. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  I  withdraw  that. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  di  Palma  has  before  him  a  different 
resolution  than  that  under  consideration.  It  is  understood  that  he 
requests  permission  to  withdraw  it. 

The  question  is  on  the  motion  to  adopt  the  resolution  presented 
by  Mr.  Gemmill.  A  record  vote  has  been  demanded  by  a  sufficient 
number.  Those  in  favor  of  the  motion  to  adopt  the  resolution  will 
vote  yes;  those  opposed  will  vote  no;  and  the  secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

Yes — 44. 

India: 

Mr.  Alexander  Robertson  Murray. 
Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Dr.  L.  J.  Kershaw. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Dr.  Minoru  Oka. 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Prevost. 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alvaro  de  Lacerda. 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Melio  Franco. 
Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio. 

Canada: 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  N  ieto  del  Rio. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Dr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 
Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 
Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 
Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 


Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 
Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 
South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 
Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 
Spain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 
Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 


Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  S.  A.  Dominici. 
Mr.  Cdsar  Zumeta. 


No— 39. 


Belgium: 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Mr.  Michel  L6vie. 

Canada: 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  H.  Vestesen. 

Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen. 

Finland: . 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  Louis  Gufirin. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzene. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A .  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 


Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Norway: 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr 
Ole  Lian). 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Mr.  Edmund  Bematowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Jose  Barbosa. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Roumania: 

Mr.  C.  Orghidan. 

Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 

Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 

Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


The  PRESIDENT.  The  vote  on  this  question  is  44  for;  39 
against;  and  the  motion  is  therefore  agreed  to.  [Applause.] 

It  is  within  six  minutes  of  adjournment  time.  Shall  we  proceed 
to  the  further  consideration  of  the  agenda  or  shall  we  recess  for 
luncheon? 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada — substitute  for  Mr.  Draper).  I  move  you, 
Mr.  President,  that  we  remain  in  session  until  the  work  of  the  con¬ 
vention  is  completed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  we  will  continue  in 
session. 

The  secretary  will  present  the  questions  for  the  next  agenda. 

The  next  item  on  the  program  is  the  consideration  of  the  agenda 
for  the  next  conference. 

Mr.  Fontaine. 

Mr.  FONTAINE  (France).  Among  14  resolutions  submitted,  a 
large  number  have  to  do  with  placing  certain  subjects  upon  the 
agenda  of  the  next  conference.  The  subjects  which  may  be  placed 
on  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference  with  any  chance  of  success 
are  far  less  numerous  than  the  proposals  which  have  been  made. 
I  believe  that  we  should  restrict  ourselves  to  entering  on  the  agenda 
of  the  next  conference  one  or  perhaps  two  subjects,  consideration  of 
which  is  compulsory,  and  allow  the  governing  body  to  discriminate 
with  regard  to  the  rest. 

Incidentally  I  recall  that  a  two-thirds  vote  is  necessary  for  the 
compulsory  entry  of  a  subject  on  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference. 
There  is  first  of  all  the  question  of  a  special  seamen’s  conference. 
This  first  question  can  be  considered  as  solved,  as  in  the  text  which 
you  have  voted  for  relative  to  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week, 
the  holding  of  this  special  conference  is  expressly  provided  for, 
and  as  the  convention  received  a  two-thirds  vote,  we  can  therefore 
concede  that  the  whole  question  is  settled  as  far  as  the  work  of  sea¬ 
men  is  concerned.  Two-thirds  of  those  voting  have  declared  them¬ 
selves  in  favor  of  the  special  conference. 

There  remain  two  other  matters,  which  I,  for  my  part,  consider 
of  the  utmost  importance.  One  has  to  do  with  agricultural  labor. 


198 


INTERN ATION AL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


¥ou  may  be  for  or  against  entering  this  on  the  agenda,  but  it  seems 
to  me  impossible  to  avoid  taking  a  vote  on  it,  inasmuch  as  special 
importance  was  given  to  agricultural  questions  at  the  conference  of 
the  International  Labor  Organization  at  Paris  and  inasmuch  as  it  was 
partly  due  to  agricultural  questions  that  two  Government  delegates 
were  allowed. 

There  is  a  second  question  which  in  my  opinion  should  be  entered 
on  the  agenda — -that  is— the  question  of  revising  the  constitution  of 
the  International  Labor  Organization  with  regard  to  the  personnel 
of  the  governing  body.  I  did  not  vote  in  favor  of  the  motion  made 
by  Mr.  Gemmill.  But  as  I  have  explained,  I  did  not  object  to  the 
substance  of  his  proposal;  I  considered  it  perfectly  natural  that 
the  constitution  should  be  revised  so  as  to  insure  a  more  harmonious 
and  perhaps  a  fairer  distribution  of  seats  on  the  governing  body, 
taking  account  of  all  the  factors  in  the  problem.  Consequently  I 
believe  it  necessary  before  proceeding  to  a  vote  on  this  proposal — 
and  it  will  be  still  more  important  afterwards — to  enter  on  the  agenda 
of  the  next  conference  the  question  of  revising  that  part  of  the 
constitution  which  refers  to  the  composition  of  the  governing  body. 

I  believe  that  it  would  be  wise  not  to  vote  on  other  matters,  and 
to  discard  the  rest  of  the  long  list  of  proposals  that  we  are  asked  to 
enter  on  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference.  I  believe  that  it  would 
be  better  to  leave  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  governing  body  as  to 
whether  they  could  profitably  be  entered  on  the  agenda. 

Mr.  SALA  (Spain).  I  move  that  the  conference  add  to  the 
subjects  just  enumerated  by  Mr.  Fontaine  for  the  next  confer¬ 
ence,  vocational  training.  I  do  this  because  I  believe  that  voca¬ 
tional  training  is  one  means  of  benefiting  the  working  classes 
and  especially  as  in  so  doing  we  would  be  complying  with  the  pre¬ 
amble  of  the  peace  treaty,  part  13  of  which  represents  vocational 
training  as  a  means  of  improving  the  conditions  of  the  working  classes 
along  with  wages,  hours  of  work,  etc.  I  move  that  the  conference 
add  to  the  measures  just  suggested  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  vocational 
training  as  a  means  of  improving  the  conditions  of  the  working  classes. 

Mr.  CASTIGLIONE  (Italy).  With  regard  to  what  Mr.  Fontaine 
has  said  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  to  the  examination  and  the  ap¬ 
proval  of  this  conference  the  following  motion: 

Resolved  that  a  draft  international  convention  for  the  protection  of  agricultural 
wage  earners  shall  be  submitted  at  the  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920. 

I  do  not  need  to  give  an  extended  explanation  of  my  motion. 
Those  who  have  followed  the  work  of  the  International  Commission 
on  Labor  Legislation  at  the  Peace  Conference  know  that  in  that  body 
the  matter  of  international  protection  for  agricultural  wage  earners 
was  adequately  discussed.  The  fact  that  the  commission  decided 
to  have  two  Government  representatives  for  each  State  is  due  pre¬ 
cisely  to  the  reason  that  in  that  way  they  wanted  to  give  opportunity 
for  the  agricultural  wage  earners  interested  to  be  represented  at  the 
annual  conference.  I  only  want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  to  the  fact  that  it  is  very  urgent  to  give  protection  to  agricultural 
wage  earners,  both  as  a  protection  for  industrial  wage  earners  who 
will  be  affected  by  competition  from  that  field  if  they  are  not  pro¬ 
tected,  and  for  social  welfare  in  general.  So  I  have  the  honor  to 
make  this  motion,  and  I  beg  the  chairman  to  put  it  to  a  vote. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  I  would  remind  the 
assembly  that  there  is  now  before  it  a  motion  presented  by  Mr. 
Lazard  and  signed  by  Viscount  de  Eza,  Mr.  Sokal,  and  myself.  This 
motion  is  related  to  that  proposed  by  the  preceding  speakers.  It 
provides  for  the  entering  of  the  following  subjects  on  the  agenda  of 
the  next  session  of  the  International  Labor  Conference: 

(а)  Agreement  to  be  established  between  laws  relative  to  the  prohibition  of  child 
labor  and  those  relative  to  compulsory  education. 

(б)  Limitation  of  the  working  hours  of  young  persons  of  both  sexes  with  a  view  to 
furthering  their  general  and  vocational  training. 

I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  necessity  for  further  amplifying 
these  two  proposals,  the  importance  of  which  is  obvious.  We  have 
passed  motions  and  we  have  drawn  up  regulations  limiting  child 
labor;  now  we  must  provide  for  the  time  before  the  child  is  admitted 
to  industry.  There  is  no  better  way  of  spending  this  time  than  by 


giving  more  education,  a  general  one,  as  well  as  vocational,  as  far  as 
is  possible. 

I  therefore  move  that  this  twofold  proposal  be  classed  with  sub¬ 
jects  to  be  discussed  by  the  next  International  Labor  Conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  di 
Palma,  that  a  draft  international  convention  for  the  protection  of 
agricultural  wage  earners  be  submitted  at  the  International  Labor 
Conference  of  1920.  It  requires  a  two-thirds,  as  well  as  a  record 
vote,  to  place  any  item  on  the  agenda  for  the  next  conference. 

Mr.  LAZARD  (France).  I  wish  to  say  just  a  word.  We  ought 
to  accept  the  system  proposed  by  the  governing  body,  that  of  adopt¬ 
ing  three  subjects,  and  leaving  the  rest  to  the  discretion  of  the 
governing  body.  If,  however,  we  have  to  consider  any  other  ques¬ 
tion  whatever,  whether  the  motions  of  Mr.  Sala,  Mr.  di  Palma,  Baron 
Mayor  des  Planches  or  mine,  or  that  of  Viscount  de  Eza,  and  others, 
then  it  seems  to  me  necessary  for  us  to  consider  all  the  questions 
proposed  for  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference.  We  do  not  know 
what  they  all  are.  They  have  been  published  in  the  proceedings, 
but  we  have  no  complete  collection.  How  can  we  tell  what  to 
select? 

If  we  are  to  give  general,  if  not  specific,  directions  to  the  governing 
body,  then  we  must  have  before  us  all  the  motions  which  have  been 
presented  up  to  the  present  time. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Moore,  of  the  Canadian  delegation. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  Would  an  amendment  be  in  order  to 
leave  the  entire  question  of  the  agenda  to  the  governing  body?  I 
ask  that  for  this  particular  reason:  I  find  that  article  400  of  the 
treaty  says  that  the  agenda  for  all  meetings  of  the  conference  will  be 
settled  by  the  governing  body,  which  shall  consider  any  suggestions 
as  to  the  agenda  that  may  be  made  by  the  Government  of  any  of  the 
members  or  by  any  representative  organization  recognized  for  the 
purpose  of  article  389.  With  that  in  view,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel 
that  there  would  be  ample  opportunity  for  each  of  the  representative 
bodies  from  every  country  here  to  consider  carefully  what  we  have 
done  at  this  conference  and  what  may  be  necessary  to  perfect  the 
conventions  already  referred  to  which  may  well  be  made  subject 
matters  for  the  next  conference  even  in  preference  to  new  subjects. 
Further,  in  looking  around  the  conference  room  I  find  that  it  is 
hardly  fair  to  say  that  this  gathering  would  be  sufficiently  represen¬ 
tative  to  come  to  a  decision  as  to  what  subjects  should  take  prece¬ 
dence  on  the  next  agenda  paper,  and  if  you  will  accept  it,  sir,  I 
would  move  as  an  amendment  that  the  whole  question  of  the  agenda 
for  the  next  meeting  be  left  to  the  governing  body  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  organizing  committee  undertook  the  work  for  this 
conference,  and  that  each  of  the  different  groups  should  send  their 
suggestions  and  resolutions  to  the  governing  body  for  consideration 
in  harmony  with  section  400.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  A  motion  as  a  substitute  for  the  motion 
before  the  house  will  be  in  order  and  will  be  entertained  by  the 
Chair. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  All  right;  I  will  make  it. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like 
to  move  an  amendment,  that  the  under-mentioned  items,  that  is, 
the  three  items  referred  to  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  be  placed  on  the  agenda 
for  the  next  conference  and  that  the  governing  body  be  requested 
to  deal  with  the  remaining  motions  of  which  notice  to  move  has  been 
given,  to  the  best  advantage  of  the  work  of  the  conference. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  advised  that  Mr.  Crawford’s 
motion  is  identical  with  that  presented  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  although 
the  Chair  did  not  understand  at  the  time  that  Mr.  Fontaine  made 
his  statement  that  he  had  presented  such  a  motion. 

Mr.  Crawford’s  amendment  to  Mr.  Moore’s  substitute  is  before  the 
conference.  Mr.  Gondra  is  recognized. 

Mr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay).  I  second  Mr.  Crawford’s  amendment 
to  Mr.  Moore’s  motion. 

Mr.  EDSTROM  (Sweden).  Mr.  President,  I  second  Mr.  Moore’s 
motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Judge  Castberg  is  recognized. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


199 


Judge  CASTBERG  (Norway).  Mr.  President,  I  also  will  second 
this  motion.  I  think  it  would  not  be  fair  to  take  one,  two,  or  three 
of  the  motions  that  are  put  into  the  record  and  treat  them  in  any 
way  different  from  other  motions.  I  also  have  a  motion  if  the 
motion  which  is  made  by  Mr.  di  Palma  is  carried,  namely: 

Ruolvci,  That  the  question  of  prescribing  a  48-hour  week  for  those  processes 
which  by  their  nature  are  required  to  be  carried  on  continuously  by  a  succession 
of  shifts  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda  for  the  next  conference. 


It  is  a  very  important  question,  but  I  will  not  take  it  up  if  Mr. 
Crawford’s  motion  is  carried.  I  second  that  motion. 

The  PRESIDENT.  M.  Nolens  is  recognized. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  It  seems  to  me  that  Mr.  Fontaine’s 
proposal  is  perfectly  reasonable.  But  if  the  conference  is  of  the 
opinion  that  the  complete  agenda  of  the  next  conference  should  be 
discussed  here  then  we  must  first  vote  on  the  motion  made  by  Mr. 
Fontaine.  If  this  motion  were  carried  there  would  be  no  further 
necessity  of  considering  individual  questions.  If  the  motion  were 
not  carried,  we  would  be  precipitated  into  interminable  discussions. 
There  are  all  sorts  of  opinions  which  could  be  convincingly  put  for¬ 
ward  with  regard  to  the  agenda  of  the  next  conference.  It  seems  to 
me  that  it  would  be  better  to  finish  the  matter  and  vote  on  Mr. 
Fontaine’s  motion.  If  it  is  not  carried  then  other  subjects  can  be 
brought  up,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  in  this  way  the  matter  can  be 
more  intelligently  discussed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  motion 
made  by  Mr.  Crawford  is  the  one  that  should  be  presented  to  the 
conference  first.  It  is  an  amendment  to  the  motion  made  by  Mr. 
Moore.  Mr.  Crawford,  however,  in  his  motion,  proposes  that  the 
three  questions  mentioned  by  Mr.  Fontaine  be  included  in  the 
agenda,  while  the  Chair  is  advised  that  there  were  but  two 
questions  suggested  by  Mr.  Fontaine,  that  of  the  composition  of  the 
governing  board  and  that  of  agricultural  labor. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  I  will  alter  it  to  two,  Mr. 
Chairman.  I  do  not  want  a  controversy  over  the  matter. 

The  PRESIDENT.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Craw¬ 
ford.  Those  who  are  in  favor  will  say  yes,  those  opposed  will  say 
no,  and  the  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Mr.  MARJORIBANKS  (Great  Britain).  May  I  ask  what  the 


motion  is? 

The  Clerk.  The  motion  is  that  two  subjects  be  placed  on  the 
agenda  for  the  next  meeting  by  the  decision  of  the  conference, 
those  two  subjects  being  the  revision  of  the  by-laws  as  to  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  governing  body  and  that  of  agricultural  labor,  the 
rest  being  left  to  the  governing  body. 

[Roll  caU.] 

Yes-42. 


Brazil: 

Mr.  Afranio  de  Mello  Franco. 

Mr.  Canos  Sampaio. 

Chile: 

Mr.  Felix  Nieto  del  Rio. 

France: 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux. 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Mr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  G.  J.  van  Thienen. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 


Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Judge  I.  M.  Lund. 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  Jens  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Ole  Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Mr.  Arturo  Campos. 

Peru: 

Dr.  Eduardo  Higginson. 

Mr.  Victor  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Alfredo  Franco. 

Siam: 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Bpain: 

Viscount  de  Eza. 

Mr.  Adolfo  Gonzales  Posada. 

Mr.  Alfonso  Sala. 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Mr.  A.  Hermann  Lindqvist. 


Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 
Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 


Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 
Venezuela: 

Mr.  Cfear  Zumeta. 


Argentina: 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 
Canada: 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 
Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons. 

Mr.  P.  M.  Draper. 

Cuba: 

Dr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 
France: 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 


No— 14. 


Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 
Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 


Japan: 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto. 


Sweden: 

Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg. 

Senator  R.  G.  Hjalmar  von  Sydow. 
Senator  Halfred  von  Koch. 


The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  The  result  of  the  vote  is  42  in 
favor  of  the  motion,  14  against.  That  is  less  than  a  quorum. 

Mr.  CRAWFORD  (South  Africa).  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  sug¬ 
gest  that  you  invite  any  delegates  who  have  not  voted  to  still  record 
their  votes? 

A  Delegate.  No,  no. 

The  PRESIDENT.  There  being  no  quorum  present,  the  ques¬ 
tion  can  not  be  referred  to  the  agenda  for  the  next  conference  on  the 
vote  as  taken. 

Mr.  Marjoribanks  is  recognized. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  Would  it  not  be  in  order,  Mr.  Chairman, 
to  take  a  vote  on  my  motion? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Marjoribanks  is  recognized. 

Mr.  MOORE  (Canada).  This  is  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman. 
You  said  “no  quorum  present.”  There  may  be  a  quorum  present, 
although  every  one  did  not  vote.  I  accept  that  ruling;  but  would  it 
be  in  order  to  test  the  vote  on  my  motion  now  and  see  whether  a 
quorum  was  favorable  to  that? 

The  PRESIDENT.  Upon  this  question  there  is  no  quorum. 
Consequently  the  motion  is  not  agreed  to. 

The  question  now  recurs  on  the  original  motion  of  Mr.  Moore. 
Those  in  favor  of  the  motion  of  Mr.  Moore  that  all  of  the  questions 
be  referred  to  the  governing  board  will  vote  yes;  those  opposed 
will  vote  no;  and  the  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  Chair’s  attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  this  motion  does 
not  propose  to  put  any  question  on  the  agenda.  It  simply  proposes 
to  refer  all  questions  to  the  governing  board.  Consequently,  a  roll 
call  and  a  two- thirds  vote  is  not  necessary. 

The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Moore  to  refer  the  matter  to 
the  governing  board.  As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  raise  their 
right  hands  and  keep  them  raised  until  counted. 

[Votes  counted.] 

Those  opposed  will  raise  their  right  hands. 

[Votes  counted.] 

The  vote  on  this  question  is  64  for  and  7  against.  The  motion  is 
therefore  agreed  to. 

Before  the  motion  for  the  adjournment  is  proposed,  may  I  have  the 
honor  of  presenting  to  the  conference  the  Director  General  of  the 
Pan-American  Union,  who  desires  to  say  a  few  words  to  you  on 
behalf  of  the  governing  board?  [Applause.] 

Mr.  BARRETT,  Director  General,  Pan  American  Union.  Mr. 
Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  am  not  authorized  to  speak  on  behalf 
of  my  governing  board,  but  I  simply  wish  to  say  to  you,  as  host  of 
the  house,  as  the  executive  officer  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  that 
it  has  been  a  very  great  honor  and  privilege  to  have  you  in  this  build¬ 
ing,  and  in  the  long  years  that  will  pass  we  shall  look  back  with 
pleasure  that  we  could  have  entertained  here  the  representatives  of  so 
many  nations  who  have  gathered  together  in  such  important  council. 

I  have  no  official  connection  with  this  meeting,  but  as  you  go  out 
from  our  house,  so  to  speak,  no  matter  what  may  have  been  your 
differences  here,  I  hope  you  will  have  a  happy  remembrance  of  the 
Pan  American  Building,  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  and  of  all 
connected  with  it.  Wherever  you  go,  remember  that  we  will  wel- 


200 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


come  you  if  you  come  back  here,  and  that  the  gates  of  our  house  will 
always  be  open  in  welcome  to  you,  whether  you  are  of  America,  Eu¬ 
rope,  Asia,  Australia,  or  Africa.  May  you  further  command  us  at  any 
time  if  we  can  ever  give  you  any  information  relating  to  America 
that  will  be  valuable  to  you,  wherever  you  may  be.  By  America 
I  mean  all  America,  from  Canada  on  the  north  to  Chile  and  Argen¬ 
tina  in  the  far  south.  We,  I  say,  are  happy  to  have  had  you,  and 
we  hid  you  Godspeed. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Baron  des  Planches. 

Baron  Mayor  des  PLANCHES  (Italy).  We  have  a  most  agree¬ 
able  task,  to  thank  the  Pan  American  Union  and  its  eloquent 
director,  my  old  friend,  Mr.  John  Barrett,  whom  we  have  just 
heard  speak,  for  the  willing  and  courteous  hospitality  which 
has  been  accorded  us  during  a  month  of  toilsome  labor. 

I  do  not  know  whether  we  have  accomplished  all  that  we  wished, 
whether  we  have  done  everything  that  we  intended  to  do,  but  I  do 
know  that  we  have  accomplished  something  worth  while,  and  in  my 
opinion  the  best  way  of  thanking  Mr.  Barrett  and  the  Pan  American 
Union  for  the  hospitality  extended  us  is  to  leave  behind  to  this 
building  so  hospitably  open  to  us,  as  a  worth  while  souvenir  for 
humanity,  the  work  accomplished  here. 

We  thank  Mr.  Barrett,  we  thank  the  Pan  American  Union,  and  we 
shall  always  have  the  happiest  recollections  of  the  hospitality  ex¬ 
tended  us.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Nolens. 

Mgr.  NOLENS  (Netherlands).  Mr.  President,  in  the  first  place 
I  wish  to  congratulate  you  on  the  result  of  the  conference,  and  to 
thank  you  for  your  efforts  in  presiding  over  it,  under  rather  difficult 
circumstances,  considering  your  other  burdensome  and  numerous 
duties — a  conference  which  was  not  always  easy  to  handle,  and  which 
from  time  to  time — may  the  parliamentarians  forgive  me — seemed 
like  a  regular  parliament. 

And,  Mr.  President,  I  also  wish  to  fulfill  a  duty  toward  those  not 
here;  those  who  were  in  a  sense  our  predecessors.  This  conference, 
at  the  results  of  which  I  rejoice  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  and  the 
practical  consequences  of  which  I  hope  may,  with  the  indispensable 
blessing  of  God,  be  most  salutary  for  social  peace,  this  conference, 
I  say,  may  be  considered  as  a  prolongation,  an  extension,  a  more 
official  continuation  of  the  efforts  undertaken  on  the  initiative  of 
those  whom  I  shall  call  the  promoters  of  this  conference.  I  have  in 
mind  first  and  foremost  the  International  Association  for  Labor  Leg¬ 
islation,  and  such  men  as  Scherrer,  von  Berlepsch,  Fontaine,  and 
Lachenal.  I  am  thinking  also  of  the  International  Association  on 
Unemployment,  and  the  Permanent  International  Commission  of 
Social  Insurance. 

This  is  neither  the  time  nor  the  place  to  expatiate  on  the  activities 
of  these  three  international  institutions,  their  influence  on  public 
opinion,  on  national  legislation,  the  thirteenth  part  of  the  peace 
treaty,  or  on  the  organization  and  purpose  of  this  conference.  I  do 
not  know,  nor  do  I  wish  to  inquire,  whether  there  will  still  be  room 
for  these  organizations %  and  if  so,  what  place  they  will  occupy — I 
hope  that  they  will  continue  to  exist — nor  do  I  know  what  relations 
will  obtain  between  these  organizations  and  this  conference.  But  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  fitting  to  express  here,  publicly,  our  gratitude 
to  these  three  international  organizations,  the  forerunners,  so  to 
speak,  of  this  more  official  conference,  by  paying  our  respects  at 
least  to  those  who  occupied  the  presidency  at  the  time  of  their  last 
meetings,  in  1910,  1912,  and  1913 — Mr.  Henri  Scherrer,  Mr.  Ray¬ 
mond  Poincard,  and  Mr.  Leon  Bourgeois. 

The  PRESIDENT.  Mr.  Carlier  is  recognized. 

Mr.  CARLIER  (Belgium).  Mr.  President,  the  employers  did  me 
the  great  honor  of  appointing  me  vice  president  of  this  conference, 
and  it  is  my  duty  and  at  the  same  time  my  great  pleasure  to  second 
on  their  behalf  the  words  which  Dr.  Nolens  has  just  spoken  thank¬ 
ing  you  for  having  done  us  the  honor  of  presiding  over  this  conference. 

You  have  enabled  us,  Mr.  President,  to  see  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  was  favorably  disposed  toward  the  work  of  this 
conference,  for  which  we  thank  you  with  all  our  hearts.  We  also 


beg  that  you  will  convey  to  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
whose  initiative  we  owe  this  conference,  as  well  as  to  your  col¬ 
leagues  in  the  Cabinet,  our  gratitude  for  your  presence  in  the  chair 
here,  and  for  all  the  consideration  which  they  have  shown  us. 

I  am  not  nor  have  I  been  here  the  only  employer — all  the  con¬ 
ference  is  composed  of  employers,  employers  of  those  who  have 
collaborated  with  us,  of  the  secretary  general,  the  assistant  secre¬ 
taries,  and  all  those  responsible  for  the  administration  of  this  con¬ 
ference.  And  I  wish,  at  this  time  when  I  am  going  to  be  occupied 
with  the  same  task  myself,  not  to  forget  the  interpreters,  of  whom 
we  have  been  the  often  extremely  hard  and  exacting  taskmasters. 

It  is  with  these  sentiments,  Mr.  President,  that  I  join  in  the 
sentiments  expressed  in  your  regard  by  Dr.  Nolens,  and  that  I 
add  our  thanks  to  all  those  in  office  here. 

Mr.  OUDEGEEST  (Netherlands — remarks  in  Dutch).  1  may  be 
permitted  to  speak  on  behalf  of  the  workers.  I  can  second  every¬ 
thing  that  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  speaking  on  behalf  of 
the  Government  and  the  gentleman  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  em¬ 
ployers.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  we  have  established  a  sound  basis 
for  further  social  legislation,  trying  to  unite  what  has  so  long  been 
separated. 

Now,  if  we  have  been  able  to  come  to  this  result  we  owe  it,  in  a 
great  measure,  to  the  impartiality  and  excellent  way  of  conducting 
affairs  of  our  president,  and  we  also  owe  it  to  the  faithful  work  done 
by  the  numerous  secretarial  staff,  and  if,  in  the  future,  we  have 
other  conferences  and  we  meet  in  other  places,  we  shall  certainly 
always  keep  a  grateful  memory  of  the  work  done  for  us  by  President 
Wilson  and  by  our  staff. 

Dr.  GONDRA  (Paraguay — remarks  in  Spanish).  I  wish  to  second 
what  has  been  said  by  M.  Carlier.  Our  thanks  are  due  to  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  for  all  that  they  have  done  for  us.  The 
United  States,  in  participating  in  the  war  and  in  participating 
in  the  treaty  conference  in  France,  have  taken  part  in  writing  one 
of  the  most  beautiful  pages  of  history,  and  this  consists  in  making 
part  of  the  peace  negotiations  the  preparative  of  this  conference,  that 
is  to  say,  the  preparing  of  legislation  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
harmony  between  capital  and  labor.  Therefore,  I  give  all  my 
thanks  to  the  United  States  Government.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Ladies  and  gentlemen  of  the  conference, 
before  you  leave  this  building  and  this  city  and  this  country  for 
your  respective  homes,  I  desire  to  express  to  you  my  hearty  appre¬ 
ciation  of  your  unfailing  courtesy  toward  each  other  and  toward  the 
presiding  officer,  which  has  made  it  for  the  presiding  officer  a  com¬ 
paratively  easy  task  to  handle  your  parliamentary  affairs. 

I  am  greatly  impressed  with  the  idea  that  you  have  been  hewing 
out  the  blocks  for  the  foundation  of  a  structure  to  shelter  the  toiling 
masses  of  the  future.  You  have  worked  patiently,  you  have  brought 
a  splendid  enthusiasm,  the  high  standard  of  intelligence,  the 
thorough  earnestness  toward  the  laying  of  this  foundation.  And  I 
am  sure  that  I  express  your  hopes,  I  am  sure  that  I  express  the  hopes 
of  the  peoples  of  all  the  world,  that  time  may  develop  the  fact  that 
you  have  built  well,  that  you  have  laid  the  foundation  for  a  structure 
that  will  stand  down  through  all  the  ages  as  the  protector  of  the 
toilers  of  the  world. 

I  thank  you  sincerely  for  your  courtesy  toward  myself  personally 
and  toward  the  people  of  my  country  generally  with  whom  you  have 
come  in  contact.  I  have  been  sorry  that  my  own  work  in  connection 
with  my  Government  has  been  such  that  I  have  not  been  able  to 
make  your  acquaintance  as  thoroughly  as  I  would  have  desired  to 
do.  I  have  been  sorry  that  the  President  of  our  country  has  been 
unable  to  be  with  you  in  person,  but  I  know  he  has  been  here  in 
•spirit,  and  I  know  that  the  bulk  of  our  people  have  been  here  with 
you  in  spirit,  and  you  may  go  forth  into  your  respective  lands  and 
all  the  lands  of  the  world  with  the  feeling  that  the  people  of  America 
are  with  you  in  the  creation  of  this  structure  that  you  have  started 
to  build.  I  thank  you  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  and  on  my 
own  behalf.  [Applause.] 

Secretary  General  Butler. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE 


201 


The  SECRETARY  GENERAL.  May  I  just  say  one  word  to 
thank  Mr.  Carlier  and  Mr.  Oudegeest  for  the  kind  words  that  they 
have  spoken  about  the  staff.  The  staff  was  drawn  from  a  number 
of  different  nationalities,  and  all  of  them  have  worked  very  long 
hours  and  with  great  enthusiasm  because  they  realized  that  they 
were  assisting  in  a  great  movement,  and  that  upon  their  work  its 
success  must  to  some  extent  depend.  Any  success  which  they  may 
have  had  seems  to  me  to  show  that  international  cooperation  may  be 
as  successful  in  the  realm  of  administration  as  the  conference  has 
shown  it  to  be  in  the  realm  of  legislation.  [Applause.] 

The  PRESIDENT.  Without  objection,  the  conference  will  stand 
adjourned  without  date,  subject  to  the  call  of  the  governing  board. 

There  being  no  objection,  the  conference  is  adjourned  without 
date. 

[Whereupon,  at  2.15  p.  m.,  the  conference  was  adjourned  sine  die, 
subject  to  the  call  of  the  governing  board.] 


The  following  delegates  were  present: 


Argentina: 

Dr.  Leonidas  Anastasi. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil. 

Mr.  Hermenegildo  Pini. 

Mr.  Americo  Balino. 

Belgium: 

Mr.  A.  Julin  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Michel  Lgvie). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim. 

Mr.  Jules  Carlier. 

Mr.  Corneille  Mertens. 

Brazil: 

Mr.  Carlos  Sampaio 
Mr.  Fausto  Ferraz. 

Canada: 

Hon.  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Hon.  Gideon  D.  Robertson. 

Mr.  James  G.  Merrick  (substitute 
for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons). 

Mr.  Tom  Moore  (substitute  for  Mr. 
P.  M.  Draper). 


Cuba: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros. 

Mr.  Francisco  Carrera  Justiz. 
Czecho-Slovakia: 

Mr.  J.  Sousek. 

Mr.  Charles  Spinka. 

Mr.  R.  Tayerle 
Denmark: 

Mr.  S.  Neumann. 

Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes. 

Mr.  Peder  Hedebol  (substitute  for 
Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen). 

Ecuador: 

Dr.  Don  Rafael  H.  Elizalde. 
Finland: 

Judge  Niilo  A.  Mannio. 

Mr.  Robert  Lavonius. 

Mr.  Matti  Paasivouri. 

France: 

Mme.  Letellier  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Arthur  Fontaine). 

Mr.  Max  Lazar  (L 


France — Continued. 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin. 

Mr.  LAon  Jouhaux. 

Great  Britain: 

Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne. 

Mr.  A.  C.  Ross  (substitute  for  Mr.  D. 
S.  Marjoribanks). 

Greece: 

Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos. 

Mr.  Angelus  Skinzopoulos. 

Mr.  Eugene  Cantacuzfene. 

Mr.  Timoleon  Lamprinopoulos. 
Guatemala: 

Mr.  Francisco  Sanchez  Latour. 

Dr.  Ramon  Bengoechea. 

Mr.  Alfredo  Palomo  Rodriguez. 

Mr.  Manuel  Moreno. 

India: 

Mr.  Narayan  Malhar  Joshi. 

Italy: 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches. 

Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  A.  Cabrini). 

Comm.  E.  Baroni. 

Mr.  Gino  Baldesi. 

Japan: 

Mr.  Eikichi  Kamada. 

Mr.  Sanju  Muto. 

Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto. 

Netherlands: 

Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens. 

Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade. 

Mr.  J.  Oudegeest. 

Nicaragua: 

Sefior  Don  Ramon  Enriquez. 
Norway: 

Judge  Johan  Castberg. 

Mr.  Th.  G.  Thorsen  (substitute  for 
Judge  I.  M.  Lund). 

Mr.  G.  Paus. 

Mr.  J.  Teigen  (substitute  for  Mr.  Ole 
Lian). 

Paraguay: 

Dr.  Manuel  Gondra. 

Persia: 

Mirza  Abdul  Ali  Khan 


Peru: 

Mr.  Carlos  Provost. 

Mr.  Vicente  Gonzales. 

Mr.  Victor  A.  Pujazon. 

Poland: 

Mr.  Franciszek  Sokal. 

Mr.  Jozef  Rymer. 

Mr.  Jan  Zagleniczny. 

Portugal: 

Mr.  Fernandes  (substitute  for  Mr. 
Jose  Barbosa). 

Roumania: 

Mr.  Gregoire  Michaesco. 

Salvador: 

Mr.  Salvador  Sol. 

Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes: 

Dr.  Velimir  Stoykovitch  (substitute 
for  Dr.  Slavko  Y.  Grouitch). 

Mr.  Marko  Bauer. 

Siam: 

Phya  Prabha  Karavongse. 

Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa: 

Mr.  H.,Warington  Smyth. 

Mr.  William  Gemmill. 

Mr.  Archibald  Crawford. 

Spain: 

Mr.  J.  Gascon  (substitute  for  Mr. 

Adolfo  Gonzalez  Posada). 

Mr.  Francisco  Largo  Caballero. 
Sweden: 

Dr.  E.  Gunnar  Huss  (substitute  for 
Judge  A.  Erik  M.  Sjoborg). 

Senator  R.  G.  Halfred  von  Koch. 

Mr.  J.  S.  Edstrom  (substitute  for  Sen¬ 
ator  Hjalmar  von  Sydow). 

Mr.  A.  Herman  Lindqvist. 
Switzerland: 

Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Dr.  Hermann  Rufenacht. 

Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler. 

Mr.  Conrad  Hg. 

Uruguay: 

Dr.  Jacobo  Varela. 

Venezuela: 

Dr.  Don  Santos  A.  Dominici. 


' 

T 


, 


- 

fjfl 

. 


•  | 


.  •  . 


APPENDIX 


REPORTS  OF  COMMITTEES  AND  COMMISSIONS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 


COMMITTEE  OF  SELECTION. 

Chairman . Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine  (France). 

Government  delegates _ Dr.  Felipe  Espil  (Argentina). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim  (Belgium). 

Hon.  G.  D.  Robertson  (Canada). 

Mr.  S.  Neumann  (Denmark). 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine  (France). 

■ - (Germany). 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain). 
Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (Italy). 

Dr.  M.  Oka  (Japan). 

Mr.  F.  Sokal  (Poland). 

Mr.  Adolfo  Posada  (Spain). 

Mr.  Hans  Sulzer  (Switzerland). 

Employers’  delegates . Mr.  F.  Hodacz  (Czecho-Slovakia). 

Mr.  Louis  Guerin  (France). 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain). 
Mr.  E.  Baroni  (Italy). 

Mr.  Sanji  Muto  (Japan). 

Mr.  A.  Sala  (Spain). 

Workers’  delegates . Mr.  Corneille  Mertens  (Belgium). 

Mr.  Leon  Jouhaux  (France). 

Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-13 unning (Great Britain). 
Mr.  Jan  Oudegeest  (Netherlands). 

Mr.  F.  L.  Caballero  (Spain). 

Mr.  A.  H.  Lindqvist  (Sweden). 
Secretary,  Mr.  n.  B.  Butler  (Great  Britain). 

Assistant  Secretary,  Capt.  Edgar  Abraham  (India). 


REPORT  OF  THE  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  SELECTION 

ON  VARIOUS  PROPOSALS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  GOVERNING 

BODY  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE. 

1.  (a)  Proposal  of  the  Peruvian  delegation  relating  to  the  defini¬ 
tion  of  the  term  “  labor;”  ( b )  proposal  of  the  delegate  from  Ecuador 
relating  to  compulsory  labor. 

(а)  The  proposal  of  Peru  is  as  follows: 

That  the  International  I  abor  Conference  shall  define  the  term  “labor”  as  follows: 
Any  physical  or  mental  effort  of  man  having  for  its  object  the  production,  trans¬ 
formation,  distribution,  accumulation,  or  consumption  of  property,  whether  the 
compensation  therefore  be  called  wage,  salary,  or  fee. 

(б)  The  proposal  of  Ecuador,  the  grounds  for  which  may  be  read  in 
the  printed  document  distributed  a  few  days  ago,  is  as  follows: 

The  International  I.abor  Conference  recommends  to  the  Governments  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  adopting  suitable  legislation  in  order  to  establish  universal  compulsory  labor 
in  keeping  with  individual  aptitudes  and  within  the  limitations  required  by  a 
proper  regard  for  health  and  human  life. 

These  two  proposals,  which  do  not  appear  on  the  agenda,  can 
only  be  referred  to  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor 
Office,  which  will  consider  whether' there  is  reason  to  place  them  on 
the  agenda  of  a  future  session. 

2.  Proposals  relating  to  the  protection  of  wage  earners  in  agricul¬ 
ture. 

Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione,  delegate  from  the  Italian  Government, 
filed  the  following  proposal  November  5,  1919: 

It  is  decided  that  a  draft  international  convention  for  the  protection  of  agricultural 
wage  earners  shall  be  submitted  at  the  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920. 


At  the  session  of  November  7,  Mr.  L4on  Jouhaux  read  the  following 
proposal,  among  the  additional  articles  proposed  by  the  workers’ 
delegation  relating  to  the  eight-hour  day: 

The  fact  that  the  present  convention  does  not  examine  the  details  and  methods 
of  enforcement  of  the  eight-hour  day  in  maritime  pursuits,  the  fact  that  the  present 
convention  contains  no  clause  relative  to  agricultural  labor,  in  no  way  implies  that 
any  exception  is  intended.  In  this  light  the  International  Labor  Office  is  charged 
to  hold  a  special  session  to  take  up  the  case  of  each  of  these  industries  with  as  little 
delay  as  possible. 

The  committee  of  selection  can  not  confine  itself  to  referring 
these  proposals  to  the  governing  body  for  action.  In  fact,  a  special 
proposal,  at  least  as  regards  the  first  one,  is  being  formulated  to  the 
effect  that  it  shall  be  placed  on  the  agenda  for  the  annual  conference 
of  192D. 

The  last  paragraph  of  article  16  of  the  Standing  Orders  provides 
as  follows: 

If  the  conference  decides  (otherwise  than  under  the  preceding  paragraph)  by  two- 
thirds  of  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present  that  any  subject  shall  be  considered 
by  the  conference,  that  subject  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda  for  the  following 
meeting. 

If  therefore  the  conference  is  of  opinion  that  the  governing  body 
should  be  required  to  put  this  question  upon  the  agenda  for  1920, 
it  must  so  declare  by  a  vote. 

3.  Maritime  labor. — The  proposal  of  Mr.  Jouhaux,  in  the  name  of 
the  workers’  delegations,  referred  to  above,  requests  that  the  govern¬ 
ing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  be  instructed  to  call 
a  special  session  of  the  conference  as  soon  as  possible,  a  session  which 
shall  be  devoted  to  the  regulation  of  working  hours  in  ocean 
transport. 

Also,  the  French  Government  announced  through  its  delegates 
that  it  requested  a  special  session  of  the  International  Conference 
to  be  convened  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  for  the  consideration 
of  work  on  board  ships  and  the  adoption  of  the  eight-hour  day. 
At  the  same  time  it  requested  the  organization  of  a  maritime  division 
in  the  International  Labor  Office. 

The  request  for  a  maritime  division  in  the  permanent  International 
Office  can  not  be  placed  before  the  governing  body. 

The  question  of  holding  a  special  meeting  is  supported  by  the 
resolution  formulated  by  the  commission  on  international  labor 
legislation  of  the  peace  conference,  which  runs  as  follows: 

The  commission  considers  that  the  very  special  questions  concerning  the  minimum 
conditions  to  be  accorded  to  seamen  might  be  dealt  with  at  a  special  meeting  of  the 
International  Labor  Conference  devoted  exclusively  to  the  affairs  of  seamen. 

In  order  to  make  such  a  session  compulsory  it  may  perhaps  be 
judged  necessary  for  this  conference  to  take  a  formal  vote,  which 
will  then  have  to  be  an  expression  of  two-thirds  of  the  members 
present.  In  any  case  the  session  will  have  to  be  arranged  by  the 
governing  body,  which  will  doubtless  be  persuaded  to  organize  a 
maritime  division. 

We  call  the  attention  of  the  assembly  to  the  fact  that  the  session 
of  the  conference  devoted  to  maritime  labor  would  come  under  the 
same  by-laws  and  regulations  as  the  other  sessions.  Each  Gov¬ 
ernment,  however,  will  doubtless  send  other  delegates,  appointed 
because  of  their  knowledge  of  maritime  questions.  It  is  understood 
that  according  to  the  by-laws  the  credentials  of  the  delegates  and 
technical  advisers  will  be  valid  only  for  the  particular  session. 

To  sum  up,  it  is  proper  to  leave  to  the  future  governing  body  the 
various  questions  indicated,  and  this  report  is  simply  taking  cogni¬ 
zance  of  these  questions.  But  we  request  the  conference  to  take  a 
stand  on  the  two  following  points: 


205 


206 


APPENDIX 


A.  Whether  the  folio-wing  should  be  entered  on  the  agenda  of  the 
next  session  of  the  International  Labor  Conference: 

Questions  relating  to  working  conditions  in  agriculture  or  at  least 
the  length  of  the  working  day  in  agricultural  pursuits. 

IL  Whether  a  special  session  of  the  International  Labor  Conference 
should  be  convened  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  in  a  city  con¬ 
sidered  most  suitable  for  such  a  purpose  by  the  governing  body,  to 
consider  the  question  of  maritime  labor,  and  more  particularly  the 
question  of  the  length  of  the  working  day  on  ships. 

The  scope  of  the  question  is  probably  to  be  precisely  defined  in 
the  draft  convention  relating  to  the  eight-hour  day. 

Arthur  Fontaine. 


COMMISSION  ON  CREDENTIALS. 


Chairman . Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain). 

Government  delegate . Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain). 

Employers’  delegate . Mr.  Jules  Carlier  (Belgium). 

Workers’  delegate . Mr.  Jan  Oudegeest  (Netherlands). 


Secretary,  Mr.  H.  J.  W.  Hetherington  (Great  Britain). 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  CREDENTIALS  TO  THE 
INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE. 

The  commission  on  credentials  has  the  honor  to  present  the  follow¬ 
ing  report: 

1.  Credentials  have  been  received  in  respect  of  all  the  delegates 
present  at  the  conference.  In  pursuance  of  the  fourth  paragraph  of 
article  3  of  the  draft  standing  orders  the  commission  has  regarded 
its  duty  as  limited  to  an  examination  of  the  cases  to  which  atten¬ 
tion  was  drawn  by  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee  or  by 
individual  objections  and  have  not  considered  it  necessary  to  scruti¬ 
nize  the  credentials  in  those  cases  where  the  appointment  of  the  dele¬ 
gate  has  not  been  challenged.  They  desire,  however,  to  remark 
that  the  credentials  submitted  differ  greatly  in  point  of  form,  some 
giving  precise  information  as  to  the  industrial  organization  of  employ¬ 
ers  and  workers  consulted  in  regard  to  the  appointment  of  non-Gov- 
emment  delegates,  others  giving  no  such  information.  It  would 
simplify  the  task  of  verifying  the  credentials  if  such  information  were 
given  in  all  cases.  The  commission  suggests  that  the  question  should 
receive  the  attention  of  the  International  Labor  Office  whose  duty  it 
will  be  to  report  on  the  credentials  of  delegates  to  future  conferences. 

2.  Protests  have  been  laid  before  the  commission  in  regard  to  the 
constitution  of  the  delegations  of  France,  South  Africa,  Japan,  Cuba, 
and  Argentina. 

3.  The  protest  in  regard  to  the  French  delegation  is  contained  in 
a  letter  which  has  been  addressed  by  the  French  Confederation  of 
Christian  Workers  to  the  French  Minister  of  Labor  and  has  been 
referred  by  the  Minister  to  the  conference.  It  complains  that  the 
representatives  of  French  labor  are  drawn  solely  from  the  Confed¬ 
eration  G4n6rale  du  Travail  of  France  and  include  no  members  of 
the  workers’  organizations  not  affiliated  with  the  confederation.  The 
minister  states  that  the  Confederation  General e  includes  at  least 
1,300,000  members,  and  the  Confederation  of  Christian  Workers 
75,000  at  most.  As  the  treaty  requires  that  the  employers’  and  work¬ 
ers’  representatives  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Governments  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  industrial  organizations  most  representative  of  employ¬ 
ers  and  workers,  and  as  there  is  no  question  that  the  Confederation 
G6n<$rale  du  Travail  is  the  organization  most  representative  of  the 
workers  in  France,  it  appears  that  the  French  Government  has  acted 
strictly  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty.  The  com¬ 
mission  recommends  that  no  action  be  taken  on  the  protest. 

4.  The  protest  in  regard  to  the  South  African  delegation  is  con¬ 
tained  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  secretary  of  the  conference  by  the 
National  Union  of  Railway  and  Harbor  Services,  Cape  Town.  It 
complains  that  the  union  has  not  been  consulted  in  regard  to  the 
choice  of  the  labor  delegate.  The  commission  received  the  following 


particulars  from  the  official  delegate  of  the  South  African  Govern¬ 
ment:  The  labor  delegate  is  the  secretary  of,  and  was  appointed  in 
consultation  with,  the  South  African  Federation  of  Trades.  The  * 
federation  includes  the  mine  workers’  union,  the  society  of  carpen¬ 
ters  and  joiners,  the  society  of  engineers,  the  building  workers,  and 
the  association  of  tramway  employees  and  engine  drivers.  It  has 
a  registered  membership  of  43,000.  Associations  not  affiliated  with 
the  federation  are  the  railway  workers,  the  Cape  trades-unions  fed¬ 
eration,  the  municipal  employees’  union,  and  the  typographical 
union.  The  membership  of  the  railway  workers’  union  is  uncertain. 
The  other  nonaffiliated  unions  have  a  registered  membership  of 
14,000.  The  total  number  of  workers  in  the  mines,  factories,  and 
railways  of  South  Africa  (excluding  native  colored  and  Asiatic 
labor)  is  stated  to  be  110,000.  The  commission,  on  the  information 
before  them,  finds  no  sufficient  ground  for  questioning  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  the  labor  delegate  for  South  Africa,  and  recommends  that 
no  action  be  taken  on  the  protest. 

5.  The  protest  in  regard  to  the  Japanese  delegation  is  contained 
in  a  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Gompers  by  Mr.  Suzuki  of  the  Federa¬ 
tion  of  Labor  of  Japan  and  others,  and  submitted  by  Mr.  Gompers 
to  the  conference.  It  complains  that  the  procedure  adopted  by  the 
Japanese  Government  in  the  selection  of  a  labor  delegate  has  been 
irregular.  The  commission  is  informed  by  the  official  delegates  of 
the  Japanese  Government  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  trades-unions 
have  only  recently  been  established  in  Japan,  and  include  only  a 
small  fraction  of  the  workers — less  than  30,000  out  of  the  total  of 
4,000,000 — the  Government  considered  it  necessary  to  adopt  a  spe¬ 
cial  procedure  in  order  to  ascertain  the  wishes  of  the  general  body 
of  industrial  workers  in  Japan.  The  method  adopted  was  as  follows: 
The  workers  in  the  industrial  establishments  in  each  province  were 
invited  to  send  representatives  to  a  provincial  meeting.  These  pro¬ 
vincial  meetings  selected  delegates  to  represent  them  at  a  general 
meeting  for  the  whole  Empire.  The  general  meeting  was  asked  to 
submit  three  names  to  the  Government.  The  Government  ap¬ 
pointed  one  of  these  three  as  the  labor  delegate.  The  first  question 
which  arises  is  whether  this  procedure  is  in  accordance  with  the 
terms  of  the  treaty.  The  treaty  requires  that  the  appointment  shall 
be  made  by  the  Government  in  agreement  with  the  industrial  organ¬ 
izations,  if  such  organizations  exist,  which  are  most  representative 
of  the  workers.  It  seems  that  before  this  provision  can  have  any 
application,  there  must  be  organizations  in  existence  in  the  country 
which  can  be  said  fairly  to  represent  the  workers  of  the  country; 
and  the  commission  is  of  opinion  that  it  is  not  possible  to  question 
the  view  of  the  Japanese  Government  that  the  existing  unions  in 
Japan,  numbering  not  more  than  30,000  out  of  several  millions  of 
workers,  were  not  sufficiently  representative  of  the  workers  of  Japan 
for  the  purpose  in  question.  The  commission  has  consulted  the 
legal  adviser  of  the  League  of  Nations,  who  is  attached  to  the  con¬ 
ference,  on  the  bearing  of  article  389  and  his  opinion  is  attached. 
Objection  is  also  taken  in  the  letter  from  Mr.  Suzuki  on  the  ground 
that  the  local  elections  of  delegates  were  influenced  improperly  by 
officials  and  employers;  that  delegates  were  appointed  who  were 
not  manual  workers,  and  that  the  delegate  to  the  labor  conference 
should  have  been  a  manual  worker.  The  commission  is  of  opinion 
that  it  is  impossible  to  take  notice  of  vague  charges  of  improper  in¬ 
fluence;  these  charges,  moreover,  are  emphatically  denied  by  the 
Japanese  official  delegates.  As  regards  the  other  objections,  it  is 
not  required  by  the  treaty  that  the  delegate  should  be  himself  a 
manual  worker.  It  is  open  to  the  workers  to  choose  any  person  as 
their  representative.  The  commission  is  of  opinion  that  no  action 
should  be  taken  on  the  protest  in  respect  of  the  Japanese  delegation. 
Mr.  Oudegeest,  while  he  accepts  the  explanation  given  by  the  official 
delegates  of  Japan,  wishes  to  place  on  record  his  view  that  in  the 
future  the  labor  delegate  should  be  chosen  in  agreement  with  the 
trades-unions  of  Japan. 

6.  The  protest  in  regard  to  the  Cuban  delegation  is  made  by  the 
president  of  the  Federation  of  Labor  Employers’  Associations  of 
Cuba,  and  alleges  (without  giving  particulars)  that  interference  by 


APPENDIX 


207 


the  Argentine  law.  There  is  also  a  federation  of  trade-unions 
representing  certain  industries  (including  commerce)  centered  in 
the  Provinces  of  Buenos  Aires  and  Santa  Fe,  the  membership  of 
which  is  uncertain.  In  the  letter  of  objection  it  is  claimed  that  the 
membership  is  80,000.  The  Government  delegates  state  that  the 
membership  fluctuates  considerably  from  time  to  time  and  at  the 
present  moment  is  probably  between  20,000  and  30,000. 

There  are  no  accurate  statistics  available.  These  associations  are 
not  incorporated  under  the  Argentine  law  and  have  no  recognized 
legal  existence.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  they  are  illegal 
associations.  The  commission  is  informed  that  there  is  no  law  in 
Argentina  in  regard  to  the  formation  of  trade-unions.  The  Argentine  • 

Government  delegates  defended  the  course  taken  by  the  Government 
on  the  ground  that  La  Fraternidad  was  the  only  association  which 
represented  workers  in  all  parts  of  the  country  and  which  is  recog¬ 
nized  by  and  has  any  responsibilities  under  the  law  of  the  State.  The 
commission  is  of  opinion  that  the  situation  was  not  an  easy  one  and 
that  there  is  no  reason  whatever  for  supposing  that  the  Argentine 
Government  in  selecting  the  labor  delegate  wished  to  act  otherwise 
than  in  compliance  with  the  treaty,  but  it  appears  to  the  Com¬ 
mission  that  it  would  have  been  better  if  the  delegates  had  been 
selected  in  consultation  jointly  with  the  two  groups  of  associated 
workers.  There  is  no  question  as  to  the  delegate  being  a  bona  fide 
representative  of  the  workers  so  far  as  the  railway  industry  is  con¬ 
cerned.  The  commission  recommends  that  in  the  circumstances 
the  conference  should  not  take  any  action  on  the  objection,  and 
suggests  that  it  would  be  advisable  that  the  Argentine  Government 
on  a  future  occasion  should  if  possible  select  the  labor  delegate  to  the 
International  Labor  Conference  by  agreement  between  the  two 
groups  of  labor  associations,  and  they  understand  from  the  Argentine 
Government  delegates  that  the  Government  would  be  perfectly 
willing  to  do  this. 

The  commission  has  also  had  referred  to  it  an  objection  to  the 
appointment  of  the  labor  delegate  Jor  Guatemala.  This  objection 
states  that  the  labor  delegate  “has  not.  been  chosen,  nor  could  be 
chosen,  by  the  votes  of  organized  labor  because  no  such  thing  exists  ” 
in  Guatemala.  This  is  not  an  objection  of  which  the  conference 
can  take  cognizance.  Under  article  389  of  the  treaty,  in  those 
countries  where  organized  labor  does  not  exist  the  responsibility 
for  the  selection  of  the  labor  delegate  rests  entirely  with  the 
Government. 

(Signed)  Malcolm  Delevingne, 

Chairman. 

Jules  Carlier, 

Employers'  Representative. 


the  Cuban  Government  has  prevented  the  federation  from  appoint¬ 
ing  a  delegate  on  behalf  of  the  employers.  The  commission  is  in¬ 
formed  by  the  official  delegates  from  Cuba  that  the  employers’  dele¬ 
gate  who  has  been  appointed  by  the  Cuban  Government  was  ap¬ 
pointed  on  the  recommendation  of  a  conference  of  the  chief  associa¬ 
tion  of  employers  in  Cuba,  including  the  sugar  industry,  tobacco  in¬ 
dustry,  and  railway  and  dock  companies;  and  that  the  employers’ 
federation,  which  represents  in  the  main  the  construction  industries 
only,  was  invited  to  the  conference  and  was  represented  at  the 
first  meeting.  The  commission  considers  that  no  action  should  be 
taken  on  the  protest. 

7.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Argentine  delegates  have  not  yet  all 
arrived,  the  commission  is  unable  at  present  to  report  on  the  objec¬ 
tion  taken  in  respect  to  the  labor  delegate  appointed  by  the  Argen¬ 
tine  Government. 

8.  The  communications  referred  to  the  commission  in  respect  to 
the  French,  South  African,  Japanese,  and  Cuban  delegations  are 
inclosed  with  this  report. 

(Signed)  Malcolm  Delevingne, 

Chairman. 

Jules  Carlier, 

Employers'  Representative. 

J.  OUDEGEEST, 

Workers'  Representative. 


LETTER  FROM  MR.  HUDSON,  LEGAL  ADVISER  TO  THE  CON¬ 
FERENCE,  TO  SIR  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE,  CONCERNING  THE 
NOMINATION  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS. 

Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne, 

International  Labor  Conference,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne:  In  response  to  your  request 
for  an  interpretation  of  the  third  paragraph  of  article  389  of  the 
labor  section  of  the  treaty,  I  submit  the  following: 

In  determining  whether  a  member  has  discharged  its  obligations 
under  this  paragraph,  the  credentials  commission  should  first  deter¬ 
mine  as  to  a  particular  country  whether  any  industrial  organizations 
exist  which  are  representative  of  employers  or  workpeople.  The 
next  step  is  to  determine  which  of  such  organizations  is  most  repre¬ 
sentative  of  employers  and  workpeople,  and  finally  it  must  be  de¬ 
termined  whether  the  member  has  chosen  its  nongovernment  dele¬ 
gates  in  agreement  with  such  most  representative  organizations. 

If  this  order  be  followed  it  may  appear  that  in  a  particular  coun¬ 
try  the  industrial  organizations  which  exist  are  not  to  any  consider¬ 
able  degree  reasonably  representative  of  employers  or  of  work¬ 
people.  I  venture  the  suggestion  that  in  such  cases  the  member  is 
not  bound  by  this  article  to  choose  delegates  or  advisers  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  existing  organizations,  but  is  free  to  choose  delegates  and 
advisers  as  it  may  see  fit. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)  Manley  O.  Hudson, 

Legal  Adviser. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON 
CREDENTIALS. 

The  commission  presents  the  following  supplementary  report: 

An  objection  to  the  appointment  of  the  Argentine  labor  delegate 
has  been  lodged  by  the  International  Federation  of  Trade-Unions. 
A  copy  of  the  letter  of  objection  is  appended  to  this  report.  The 
commission  has  received  a  statement  of  the  ground  on  which  the 
objection  is  based  from  Mr.  Oudegeest,  one  of  the  signatories  of  the 
letter,  who  is  a  member  of  the  commission,  and  explanations  from 
the  Argentine  Government  delegates.  The  position  appears  to  be 
as  follows:  The  labor  delegate  was  selected  by  the  Argentine  Gov¬ 
ernment  in  agreement  with  the  association  of  railway  workers,  known 
as  La  Fraternidad.  This  association  is  the  oldest  association  of 
workers  in  the  country;  its  membership  is  over  15,000  and  includes 
over  90  per  cent  of  the  railway  workers.  It  is  incorporated  under 


MINORITY  REPORT  ON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  THE  ARGENTINE 
WORKERS*  DELEGATE. 

I  dissent  from  the  finding  of  this  report  so  far  as  concerns  the  ad¬ 
mission  of  the  Argentine  delegate.  I  propose  that  this  gentleman 
should  not  be  admitted  as  the  delegate  of  the  Argentine  workers, 
since  he  has  not  been  appointed  in  agreement  with  the  most  repre¬ 
sentative  workers’  organization  in  that  country. 

Jan  Oudegeest, 

Workers’  Representative. 


LETTER  FROM  THE  INTERNATIONAL  FEDERATION  OF  TRADE- 
UNIONS  TO  THE  COMMISSION  ON  CREDENTIALS  OF  THE  INTER¬ 
NATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE. 

November  1,  1919. 

To  the  chairman  and  members  of  the  commission  on  credentials. 

Gentlemen:  According  to  communications  which  we  have  re¬ 
ceived  from  the  Federation  of  Trade-Unions  in  Argentina,  repre¬ 
senting  80,000  organized  workers,  the  nomination  of  the  workers’ 
delegate  from  Argentina  has  not  been  made  in  conformity  to  article 
389  of  the  peace  treaty.  The  Government  did  not  consult  the 
Federation  of  Trade-Unions,  and  it  is  the  most  representative  or¬ 
ganization  in  the  country. 


208 


APPENDIX 


We  therefore  request  that  you  will  not  admit  to  the  conference 
Mr.  Americo  Balino  as  the  workers’  delegate  from  Argentina. 

We  are,  gentlemen,  on  behalf  of  the  International  Federation  of 
Trade-Unions, 

Yours,  faithfully, 

W.  A.  Appleton,  President. 

L.  Jouhaux,  First  Vice  President. 

C.  Mertens,  Second  Vice  President. 

J.  Oudegeest,  Secretary. 


COMMISSION  ON  APPLICATIONS  FOR  ADMISSION. 

Chairman,  Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell  (Canada). 

Government  delegates,  Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine  (France);  Hon.  N.  W. 
Rowell  (Canada). 

Employers’  delegates,  Mr.  Paul  Collinet  (France);  Mr.  Marcel  Frai- 
pont  (Belgium). 

Workers’  delegates,  Mr.  Gino  Baldesi  (Italy);  Mr.  N.  M.  Joshi  (India), 
acting  as  provisional  substitute  for  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States). 
Secretary,  Mr.  H.  J.  W.  Hetherington  (Great  Britain). 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  APPLICATIONS  FOR 
ADMISSION  OF  NEW  MEMBERS. 

The  commission  has  the  honor  to  present  the  following  report: 

The  instructions  to  the  combiission  were  as  follows:  “To  consider 
and  report  upon  the  question  of  admitting  Finland,  Luxemburg,  and 
the  Dominican  Republic,  and  any  other  applications  for  admission 
which  may  be  received  during  the  present  conference;  and,  further, 
that  the  resolution  standing  in  the  name  of  Mr.  Rafael  H.  Elizalde 
(Ecuador)  be  referred  to  the  said  commission.” 

With  regard  to  the  admission  of  Luxemburg  and  the  Dominican 
Republic,  and  with  regard  also  to  the  motion  submitted  by  Mr. 
Elizalde.  relating  to  the  admission  of  Mexico,  the  commission  is  able 
to  present  a  unanimous  report.  But  in  regard  to  the  admission  of 
Finland,  the  commission  found  itself  unable  to  arrive  at  agreement. 
The  commission,  therefore,  submits  its  report  in  three  parts.  The 
first  part  is  submitted,  as  a  majority  report,  by  Mr.  Baldesi,  on 
behalf  of  himself  and  Messrs.  Collinet.  Fontaine,  and  Fraipont.  The 
second  part  is  submitted  as  a  minority  report  by  Mr.  Rowell,  the 
chairman  of  the  commission.  The  third  part  contains  the  unanimous 
recommendation  of  the  commission  on  all  matters  referred  to  it  other 
than  the  admission  of  Finland. 

I. 

MAJORITY  REPORT  ON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  FINLAND. 

The  commission  had  first  to  consider  the  question  whether  the 
terms  of  the  peace  treaty  allowed  of  the  admission  of  a  country  which 
has  not  previously  explicitly  adhered  to  the  League  of  Nations. 

In  a  lengthly  debate,  during  which  several  points  of  view  were 
set  forth,  the  commission  made  a  careful  study  of  the  question  from 
a  general  standpoint,  and  by  a  majority  reached  the  conclusion  that 
any  nation  which  makes  a  regular  application  duly  signed  by  its 
Government,  and  which  accepts  all  the  duties  and  obligations 
incumbent  on  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization, 
may  be  admitted  by  the  conference  to  membership  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Organization  without  yet  being  a  member  of  the  League 
of  Nations. 

This  decision  of  the  majority  is  sufficiently  justified  by  reference 
to  article  387  of  the  peace  treaty,  which  says:  “Membership  of  the 
League  of  Nations  carries  with  it  membership  of  the  Labor  Organiza¬ 
tion.  ’  ’  Thus  this  passage  clearly  and  solely  prescribes  that  members 
of  the  League  of  Nations  are  required  to  belong  to  the  International 
Labor  Organization.  There  is  in  it  no  explicit  exclusion  from  that 
organization  of  those  countries  which  are  not  members  of  the  League. 


But  more  than  this,  the  report  submitted  by  Mr.  Fontaine  on  the 
exchange  of  views  between  the  secretary  general  of  the  peace  con¬ 
ference,  Mr.  Dutasta,  and  the  president  of  the  labor  commission  to 
the  peace  conference,  shows  that  the  supreme  council  at  Paris  de¬ 
cided  on  September  11,  that  the  question  of  the  admission  of  the 
German  and  Austrian  delegates  to  the  forthcoming  labor  congress  at 
Washington  should  be  left  to  the  decision  of  that  congress. 

The  conference  has  already  studied  the  question  of  the  admission 
of  Germany  and  Austria,  and  has  decided  it  in  their  favor  with  only 
one  vote  against,  recorded  for  reasons  which  need  not  be  considered 
here,  as  they  would  not  apply  to  the  other  nations  which  are  not  in 
the  same  position  as  Germany  and  Austria  from  the  point  of  view 
adopted  by  those  who  discussed  and  approved  the  constitution  of 
the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Again,  replying  to  the  application  made  to  the  supreme  council 
by  the  Finnish  delegation  under  date  September  23,  1919,  for  admis¬ 
sion  to  the  Washington  conference,  the  supreme  council  decided  as 
follows: 

October  2, 1919. 

It  was  decided  that  the  question  raised  by  the  note  of  the  secretary  general  of  the 
InternationalCommisdon  of  Labor  relating  to  the  admission  of  Finland,  Norway,  and 
the  Netherlands  to  the  approaching  conference  at  Washington  should  be  left  to  the 
decision  of  this  conference. 

This  reply  definitely  and  explicitly  sanctions  the  right  of  the 
conference  to  decide  on  the  admission  of  States  which  are  not  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  League  of  Nations.  It  can  not  be  contended  that  the 
supreme  council  could  have  decided  as  above  in  the  case  of  Finland 
while  reserving  to  itself  the  right  to  decide  otherwise  in  the  case 
of  other  countries  in  the  same  position,  for  there  is  no  hint  that  such 
requests  may  not  be  considered  if  received  or  that  they  should  be 
addressed  only  to  the  League  of  Nations. 

Having  thus  concluded  that  there  is  no  legal  reason  why  a  country 
which  is  not  yet  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations  should  not  belong 
to  the  International  Labor  Organization,  the  commission  has  now 
to  inquire  whether  it  is  advisable  for  the  conference  to  make  a 
decision  which  would  open  the  door  to  all  countries  making  regular 
application.  The  reply  wag  evident  and  had  already  been  given  by 
the  conference  when  discussing  the  admission  of  Germany  and  Austria. 
The  larger  the  number  of  adhering  countries  who  accept  its  decisions, 
the  greater  will  be  the  importance  of  the  International  Labor  Organ¬ 
ization  in  directing  social  legislation.  The  aim  of  the  Labor  Organ¬ 
ization  is  not  to  secure  the  preponderance  of  one  section  of  the 
human  family  over  another,  but  to  secuie  like  protection  of  the 
worker  in  all  latitudes  and  to  place  it  under  a  joint  control. 

The  majority  of  the  members  of  the  commission,  therefore,  believ¬ 
ing  that  thus  it  interpreted  the  views  of  the  delegates  here  assem¬ 
bled — who  already  by  admitting  Germany  and  Austria  to  the 
conference,  and  by  admitting  the  representatives  of  American  labor 
and  employers,  have  clearly  expressed  their  view  that  the  labor 
interests  of  the  world  are  best  served  by  extending  membership  to 
as  many  nations  as  possible — adopted  the  following  motion  by 
4  votes  to  1: 

The  commission  appointed  to  examine  the  position  oi  those  countries  which 
without  being  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  have  asked  to  be  represented  at 
the  International  Labor  Conference  is  of  the  opinion  that— 

Whereas  article  387  of  the  text  of  the  treaty  of  peace  which  deals  with  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Organization  declares  that  the  status  of  membership  of  the  League  of 
Nations  carries  with  it  Vhe  status  of  membership  of  the  International  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation,  and  whereas  this  fact  does  not  imply  the  exclusion  of  those  States  which  are 
not  members  of  the  League  of  Nations:  considering  also  that  the  supreme  council  and 
the  present  conference  itself  have  interpreted  this  article  in  this  sense  by  accepting 
Germany  and  Austria  as  participants  in  the  labors  and  deliberations  of  the  conference 
before  these  States  have  become  members  of  the  league:  it  is  therefore  resolved  that 
as  a  general  principle  any  State  which,  in  conformity  with  the  established  rules  of 
procedure,  requests  admission  to  the  International  Labor  Organization  can  be  ad¬ 
mitted. 

The  majority  of  the  commission  are  confident  that  the  conference 
will  accept  their  decision  which  places  all  nations  desiring  member¬ 
ship  on  the  same  footing,  so  long  as  they  undertake  the  duties  as¬ 
signed  to  members  by  the  peace  treaty  (including  their  share  of  the 
expenses  of  the  organization). 


APPENDIX 


209 


Having  thus  settled  the  question  of  principle  regarding  the  ad¬ 
mission  of  nations  not  yet  belonging  to  the  League  of  Nations,  the  com¬ 
mission  had  to  examine  the  applications  before  the  conference. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  commission  the  minister  of  Finland, 
Mr.  Saastamoinen.  presented  a  report  supplementary  to  the  state¬ 
ment  which  had  been  placed  before  the  supreme  council  when  appli¬ 
cation  was  first  made. 

Some  doubt  was  expressed  as  to  the  validity  of  the  application  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Saastamoinen  as  delegate 
of  his  Government  to  the  International  Labor  Conference  and  not  as 
diplomatic  representative  of  his  country.  But  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  supreme  council  had  referred  the  question  of  Finland  to  the 
conference,  the  commission  took  the  view  that  the  application  must 
be  held  to  be  in  order.  Mr.  Rowell,  while  disagreeing  with  the  gen¬ 
eral  position  of  the  majority,  did  not  wash  to  raise  any  technical 
objection  as  to  the  form  of  the  application. 

The  following  resolution  was  adopted  by  4  votes  to  1 : 

The  commission  having  examined  the  application  for  admission  made  by  Finland, 
and  having  in  mind  (a)  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  majority  on  the  question  of 
principle:  (6)  the  statement  made  by  the  minister  of  Finland,  and  (c)  the  application 
made  by  the  Government  of  Finland  to  the  supreme  council,  resolves  to  recommend 
to  the  conference  the  admission  of  Finland  as  a  member  of  the  International  Labor 
Organization  with  the  same  rights  and  duties  as  the  other  States  members  of  the 
organization. 

In  this  case  also  the  majority  of  the  commission  believes  that  it 
has  rightly  interpreted  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  members 
of  the  conference. 

The  majority  desire  to  add  to  these  resolutions  a  unanimous  ex¬ 
pression  of  opinion  that  all  Governments  adhering  to  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Organization  should  be  urged  to  become  members  of 
the  League  of  Nations,  and  that  the  League  of  Nations  should  be  urged 
to  admit  as  effective  members  all  countries  making  such  application. 

(Signed)  Gino  Baldesi. 

Arthur  Fontaine. 

Paul  Collin  et. 

Marcel  Fraipont. 

II. 

MINORITY  REPORT  UPON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  FINLAND. 

1.  The  report  of  the  majority  of  the  commission  on  applications  sub- 
mits  in  effect  two  recommendations  or  conclusions:  (a)  That  the  con¬ 
ference  itself  is  competent,  simply  by  means  of  a  vote  of  the  delegates, 
to  grant  membership  in  the  International  Labor  Organization  to  any 
State  even  though  that  State  has  not  been  admitted  to  membership 
in  the  League  of  Nations,  was  not  a  signatory  of  the  treaty  of  peace, 
and  was  not  named  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  and  ( b)  that  in  pursuance  of  this  the  conference  should  admit 
Finland  to  membership  in  the  Labor  Organization  and  consequently 
to  formal  participation  in  the  conference. 

2.  So  far  as  the  aspiration  of  Finland  for  membership  in  the  Labor 
Organization  is  concerned,  I  am  in  the  most  complete  sympathy 
with  it,  and  am  of  opinion  that  the  conference  should  do  all  that  it 
may  properly  do  to  expedite  her  admission.  To  that  end  a  resolution 
will  be  submitted  with  this  report. 

3.  But  from  the  first  conclusion  of  the  majority  of  the  commission 
I  respectfully  dissent.  My  disagreement  is  so  complete  and  the 
matter  is  of  such  fundamental  significance  that  I  am  constrained  to 
submit  a  report  in  support  of  my  view. 

4.  The  issue  between  the  majority  and  minority  of  the  commission 
is  not  whether  the  delegates  from  Finland  should  or  should  not  be  ad¬ 
mitted  to  take  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Washington  meeting; 
all  are  agreed  that  they  should.  The  issue  is,  whether  the  conference 
has  or  has  not  the  power  or  legal  authority  to  admit  Finland  as  a  nation 
into  full  membership  in  the  International  Labor  Organization  with¬ 
out  Finland  first  either  adhering  to  the  treaty  of  peace,  and  thereby 
becoming  bound  by  its  provisions  or  becoming  a  member  of  the 
League  of  Nations.  The  majority  say  the  conference  has  the  power. 


The  minority  is  of  the  contrary  opinion.  The  question  is  not  one  of 
policy  or  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the  commission  or  the  conference, 
as  the  majority  report  would  appear  to  suggest.  It  is  a  purely  legal 
proposition  depending  upon  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  treaty 
of  peace.  The  conference  has  no  power  of  interpretation.  That 
power  is  expressly  committed  to  the  permanent  court  of  international 
justice  oi  other  tribunal  to  be  established  under  the  provisions  of  the 
treaty.  The  question,  however,  being  a  legal  one,  the  conference 
should  give  special  consideration  and  weight  to  the  opinion  of  the 
legal  adviser  to  the  conference. 

5.  My  view  in  brief  is  that  under  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of 
peace,  upon  which  all  our  action  must  be  based,  membership  in  the 
Labor  Organization  depends  upon  membership  in  the  League  of 
Nations;  that  unless  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  is  amended  in 
the  manner  prescribed  in  article  422,  such  membership  can  only 
be  acquired  by  pursuing  the  formal  procedure  expressly  laid  down 
in  the  treaty;  and  that  the  conference  itself  has  no  power,  even 
by  unanimous  vote,  to  grant  such  membership  to  a  State.  The 
legal  adviser  of  the  conference  has  submitted  an  admirable  memo¬ 
randum  reaching  the  same  conclusion.  With  the  reasoning  of  that 
memorandum  I  agree,  and  I  take  the  liberty  to  append  a  copy  of 
it  as  a  part  of  this  report.  There  are  certain  points  in  this  memo¬ 
randum  which  I  wish  here  to  expand  somewhat,  and  there  are 
perhaps  one  or  two  additional  considerations  that  demand  treatment. 

6.  While  all  will  agree  that  it  is  most  desirable  to  have  the  largest 
possible  number  of  nations  accept  the  principles  of  the  labor  clauses 
of  the  peace  treaty  and  to  be  bound  by  their  provisions,  it  is  essen¬ 
tial,  if  this  object  is  to  be  secured,  that  the  procedure  laid  down  by 
the  peace  treaty  for  admission  to  the  International  Labor  Organiza¬ 
tion  should  be  followed.  If  action  is  taken  beyond  the  power  of 
the  conference  and  draft  conventions  are  formally  approved  by  a 
conference  not  legally  constituted,  any  nation  affected  by  such  a 
convention  might  challenge  the  validity  of  the  action  taken.  The 
protection  of  the  workers  in  all  countries  parties  to  the  International 
Labor  Organization  demands  that  every  precaution  should  be  taken 
to  insure  the  validity  of  the  conference. 

7.  It  is  essential  at  the  outset  to  envisage  just  what  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Organization  is.  It  is,  as  its  name  implies,  an 
organization1  of  nations  formed  for  a  definite  purpose.  It  has  a 
written  constitution  which  was  framed  and  agreed  upon  only  after 
protracted  and  difficult  negotiation  between  the  nations  concerned. 
Upon  the  basis  of  that  agreement,  and  upon  no  other,  they  agreed 
to  cooperate.  The  powers  of  the  conference  are  limited  and  defined 
by  this  constitution;  it  can  no  more  exceed  them  than  can  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  exceed  the  powers  given  it  by  the 
American  constitution.  It  is  a  new  departure  in  international 
relationships,  entered  upon  only  after  most  serious  reflection,  but 
with  an  anxious  desire  on  the  part  of  all  to  j oin  in  its  splendid  purpose. 
It  contemplates  in  certain  contingencies  a  limitation  upon  the 
freedom  of  action  of  the  constituent  nations.  To  that  extent,  though 
it  may  not  be  very  great,  it  does  constitute  in  effect  a  certain  restric-. 
tion  upon  the  sovereignty  of  its  members.  Now  it  is  a  well- 
recognized  rule  of  interpretation  that  a  limitation  or  restraint  upon 
sovereignty  is  never  presumed  or  implied,  but  can  only  be  admitted 
if  it  is  expressly  provided  for.  It  is  in  the  light  of  these  considera¬ 
tions  that  the  present  question  must  be  solved. 

8.  The  Labor  Organization  consists  primarily  of  two  bodies,  the 
governing  body  and  the  general  conference.  As  in  any  parlia¬ 
mentary  organization,  membership  is  a  vital  matter  going  to  the 
root  of  its  existence.  As  in  other  cases,  the  written  constitution, 
to  which  we  are  subject,  has  here  made  positive  provision  for 
membership.  Membership  in  the  Labor  Organization  under  article 
387  follows  upon  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations.  There  is 
no  other  express  provision  for  membership. 

It  is  apparently  the  view  of  the  majority  of  the  commission  that 
because  article  387  does  not  expressly  exclude  other  means  of 
admitting  new  States  to  membership,  the  conference  may  therefore 
proceed  to  grant  applications  for  admission.  It  will  be  noted  that 


146865°— 20 - 14 


210 


APPENDIX 


this  far-reaching  conclusion  is  based  entirely  upon  presumption  or 
implication,  and  moreover  that  it  involves  two  distinct  and  separate 
implications.  It  involves,  first,  the  implication  that  some  other 
procedure  for  admission  to  membership  than  that  expressly  laid 
down  may  be  followed;  and,  secondly,  the  implication  that  the 
various  States  signatory  to  the  treaty  or  adhering  thereto  have 
agreed  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty  that  such  admission  may  be 
granted  simply  by  means  of  a  vote  of  their  delegates  in  this  con¬ 
ference  assembled.  From  this  conclusion,  and  this  manner  of 
reasoning,  I  must  dissent.  It  is  a  clear  violation  of  the  rule  of 
interpretation  already  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph;  for 
the  question  of  membership  is  vital;  every  State  ordinarily  enjoys 
complete  freedom  of  action  concerning  its  associations  with  other 
States  for  any  purpose  whatever,  and  that  freedom  of  action  can 
not  be  reduced  by  implication.  Nor  can  I  agree  with  the  implica¬ 
tion  that  each  State  must  be  taken  as  having  delegated  this  impor¬ 
tant  power  to  the  delegates  at  this  conference. 

It  may  safely  be  ventured  that  there  is  no  precedent  for  the 
conclusion  of  the  majority  on  this  point,  nor  for  the  basis  upon 
which  it  is  reached.  For  example,  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  provides  that  “new  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress 
into  this  Union,”  but  it  does  not  expressly  state  that  new  States 
may  not  be  admitted  by  some  other  means.  But  no  one  would 
think  of  suggesting  that  for  this  reason  a  new  State  might  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  by  the  President,  or  by  the  Senate  acting  alone, 
or  indeed  by  any  other  means  than  that  expressly  prescribed. 

Again,  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  provides  for  commissions  of 
inquiry,  and  for  a  court  of  international  justice  in  certain  cases 
of  dispute,  but  it  does  not  expressly  state  that  other  methods  of 
investigation  are  excluded  in  such  cases.  Would  it,  however,  be 
contended  that  for  this  reason  it  would  be  competent  for  the  gov¬ 
erning  body  to  pursue  some  other  method?  If  another  method 
were  pursued  would  not  any  State  concerned  be  entitled  to  protest 
and  refuse  to  be  bound  in  any  way? 

9.  A  still  further  consideration  is  that  there  is  nowhere  any  pro¬ 
vision  for  the  character  of  the  vote  that  would  decide  the  question 
of  admission — whether  it  shall  be  unanimous,  by  two-thirds,  by 
three-fourths,  or  by  a  simple  majority.  Had  those  who  agreed  to  the 
treaty  contemplated  that  the  conference  as  such  should'  have  power 
to  admit  new  members  to  the  Labor  Organization,  they  would 
unquestionably  have  made  careful  provision  in  this  exceedingly 
important  feature  of  the  matter,  as  they  did  in  respect  of  admission 
to  the  League  of  Nations.  (Art.  1.) 

10.  The  absence  also  of  any  provision  for  adhesion  to  the  labor  part 
of  the  treaty  independently  of  adhesion  to  the  League4  of  Nations 
covenant  shows  that  membership  of  the  Labor  Organization  inde¬ 
pendently  of  membership  in  the  League  was  never  contemplated 
under  the  treaty  as  it  stands.  This  is  a  matter  of  substance,  for  it 
involves  the  formal  undertaking  of  the  obligations  of  the  labor 
sections,  and  of  course  the  original  members  could  scarcely  be 
■expected  to  admit  a  new  State  to  membership  without  obligations 
while  they  themselves  were  subject  to  all  the  burdens  of  the 
instrument. 

11.  Nor,  for  the  reasons  pointed  out  in  the  memorandum  by  the 
legal  adviser  to  the  conference,  does  the  admission  of  Germany 
and  Austria  constitute  a  precedent  on  this  question.  The  circum¬ 
stances  of  that  case  are  wholly  anomalous  and  exceptional,  and  the 
decision  can  only  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  a  special  agreement 
entered  into  by  the  allied  and  associated  powers  with  Germany  and 
Austria. 

It  is  urged  by  the  majority  report  that  this  constituted  an  inter¬ 
pretation  of  article  387  by  the  supreme  council  before  the  signature 
of  the  treaty  and  that  this  interpretation  is  to  be  extended  to  the 
case  of  new  States.  Clearly  this  argument  overlooks  the  special 
circumstances  of  the  case.  The  effect  of  the  action  of  the  supreme 
council  upon  the  meaning  of  the  treaty  must  be  limited  by  these 
circumstances.  The  agreement  was  entered  into  at  the  special 


request  of  Germany  and  Austria  for  their  special  benefit  and  for  their 
benefit  alone,  and  it  constituted  an  element  in  the  consideration  on 
which  they  agreed  or  submitted  to  the  treaty.  Accordingly  the 
allied  and  associated  powers,  acting  through  the  supreme  council, 
sanctioned  the  special  agreement  or  exception.  That  is  all  they  did. 
It  was  unnecessary  for  them  to  go  any  further  or  to  decide  anything 
else;  neither  the  central  powers  not  the  allied  and  associated  powers 
had  any  interest  whatever  in  extending  the  application  of  the 
agreement  beyond  that  point.  The  supreme  council,  therefore, 
can  not  be  regarded  as  having  been  authorized  by  the  allied  and 
associated  powers  to  extend  the  agreement  or  to  give  a  general 
interpretation  of  this  provision  of  the  treaty.  Even  if  in  the  corre- 
pondence  in  question  the  supreme  council  did  in  fact  purport  to 
give  a  general  interpretation  of  article  387,  which  can  not  be 
admitted,  it  could  be  regarded  only  as  pure  obiter  dicta,  since  it 
was  not  essential  to  the  solution  of  the  case  before  them.  It  can  not 
be  presumed  nor  implied  that  the  supreme  council  intended  to  make 
such  an  interpretation. 

12.  Again,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  resolution  passed  by 
the  conference  inviting  representatives  of  the  employers  and 
employees  of  the  United  States  to  take  part  in  the  conference  to  see 
that  this  action  forms  no  precedent  for  the  decision  of  the  majority, 
as  is  contended  in  their  report.  The  resolution  is  as  follows: 

The  delegates  of  the  Governments,  the  employers,  and  the  workers  here  assembled 
request  the  organizing  committee  to  invite  the  organizations  of  workers  and  employ¬ 
ers  of  the  United  States,  already  named  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  Mr.  Wilson,  to 
send  their  delegates  to  this  conference. 

There  could  be  no  possible  objection  to  a  similar  proposal  in 
reference  to  Finland ;  and  a  resolution  with  regard  to  the  partici¬ 
pation  of  the  delegates  of  Finland  in  this  conference  forms  part  of 
the  minority  report. 

13.  The  action  of  the  supreme  council  in  remitting  the  question 
concerning  Finland  to  this  conference  has  been  urged  in  support 
of  the  view  of  the  majority  of  the  commission  on  the  theory,  appar¬ 
ently,  that  it  implies  that  the  supreme  council  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  conference  is  competent  to  grant  membership.  Here, 
again,  it  will  be  noted,  we  are  asked  to  rely  upon  an  implication  or 
presumption.  Again,  therefore,  the  rule  of  interpretation  must  be 
invoked.  But,  apart  from  that,  it  is  submitted  that  the  view  of  the 
supreme  council  can  have  no  weight  whatever  on  a  question  of  the 
interpretation  of  the  treaty,  and  that  to  admit  the  contrary  would 
be  most  undesirable.  The  supreme  council  is  nowhere  given  any 
power  to  interpret  the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  and  the  conference 
would  be  well  advised  to  refuse  to  recognize  the  supreme  council  in 
this  capacity.  On  the  contrary,  under  article  423  the  interpretation 
of  this  part  of  the  treaty  is  reserved,  in  case  of  question  or  dispute, 
to  the  permanent  court  of  international  justice.  The  covenant  of 
the  League  also  makes  provision  in  article  13  for  disputes  on  the 
interpretation  of  treaties,  but  it  distinctly  does  not  contemplate 
that  the  supreme  council  shall  be  the  arbiter.  Still  less  has  the 
supreme  council  any  power  to  confer  upon  the  conference  any 
authority  or  jurisdiction  in  addition  to  that  conferred  by  the  treaty. 
It  can  neither  add  to  nor  subtract  from  our  powers. 

14.  The  point  has  been  urged  that  other  nations  which  did  not 
sign  the  treaty  and  which  have  not  yet  adhered  thereto  are  acting 
in  this  conference  and  that  therefore  Finland  should  be  admitted 
as  well.  On  this  point  it  will  be  recalled  that  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  in  its  dispatch  of  August  20,  addressed  to  the  various  Gov¬ 
ernments,  gave  the  following  opinion: 

In  regard  to  the  45  States  enumerated  in  the  annex  to  the  covenant,  the  organizing 
committee  is  of  opinion  that  they  should  all  be  invited  to  take  part  in  the  labor 
conference  at  Washington,  just  as  Switzerland  was  invited  to  take  part  in  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee.  The  invitation  would  lapse,  however,  in  the  case  of  any  State 
which  failed  to  give  its  adhesion  as  provided  for  in  the  peace  treaty  within  the  period 
indicated  in  article  1,  paragraph  1,  of  the  treaty. 

This  clearly  indicates  the  view  entertained  and  acted  on  by  the 
organizing  committee,  namely,1  that  membership  in  the  Labor 
Organization  depends  upon  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations, 


APPENDIX 


211 


and  this  opinion  incorporated  in  the  organizing  committee’s  letter 
discloses  the  basis  upon  which  the  invitations  were  extended  to 
the  various  States  to  attend  the  conference  and  upon  which  the 
conference  is  now  proceeding. 

15.  Again,  it  must  be  apparent  that  the  conference  is  not  com¬ 
petent  to  render  an  interpretation  of  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty, 
since  this  part  of  the  treaty  itself  provides  in  article  423  that— 

Any  question  or  dispute  relating  to  the  interpretation  of  this  part  of  the  present 
treaty  or  of  any  subsequent  convention  concluded  by  the  members  in  pursuance  of 
the  provisions  of  this  part  of  the  present  treaty  shall  be  referred  for  decision  to  the 
permanent  court  of  international  justice. 

In  view  of  the  strong  opinion  expressed  by  the  legal  adviser  of 
the  conference  that  the  conference  has  no  independent  power  to 
admit  a  State  to  membership  in  the  Labor  Organization,  the  con¬ 
ference  should  not  act  upon  the  resolution  proposed  by  the  majority 
and  admit  a  new  State  without  having  first  referred  the  question 
of  its  competence  to  do  so  to  the  permanent  court  of  international 
justice. 

16.  In  short,  the  conference  has  no  power  under  the  treaty  to 
admit  to  the  Labor  Organization  a  State  that  has  not  been  admitted 
to  the  League  of  Nations.  It  could  only  acquire  such  power,  there¬ 
fore,  through  an  amendment  to  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty.  Whether 
such  an  amendment  should  be  made  is  a  subject  that  might  properly 
be  considered  by  the  conference,  provided  that  it  was  duly  placed 
on  the  agenda  after  the  appropriate  lapse  of  time;  but  in  any  case  the 
amendment  could  only  be  enacted  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
article  422 — that  is,  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  conference,  ratified 
afterwards  by  the  States  represented  on  the  council  of  the  League 
and  by  three-fourths  of  the  members. 

17.  But  although  the  conference  can  not  admit  Finland  to  mem¬ 
bership  in  the  Labor  Organization,  it  still  has  the  power  to  permit 
the  Finnish  delegates  to  informal  participation  in  the  deliberations 
of  the  present  meeting  of  the  conference,  and  in  view  of  their  having 
journeyed  in  good  faith  to  Washington  for  the  purpose  it  is  clearly 
incumbent  upon  the  conference  to  go  this  length.  And  it  is  sub¬ 
mitted  that  the  conference  should  go  still  further,  should  indeed  go 
as  far  as  it  properly  can,  in  the  direction  of  satisfying  the  legitimate 
and  laudable  aspiration  of  Finland  for  membership  in  the  Labor 
Organization.  To  the  extent  to  which  the  conference  can  expedite 
Finland’s  admission  it  ought  to  do  so;  and  it  can  do  this  by  recom¬ 
mending  her  immediate  admission  to  the  League  of  Nations. 

18.  With  these  objects  in  mind,  therefore,  I  submit  for  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  conference  the  following  resolution  as  a  substitute 
for  that  proposed  by  the  majority  of  the  commission  on  applications: 

Resolution  on  the  Application  of  Finland  for  Admission  to  the  Labor 

Organization. 

1.  In  view  of  the  opinion  of  the  legal  adviser  of  the  conference  that  admission  to 
membership  in  the  International  Labor  Organization  can  only  be  secured  through 
membership  in  the  League  of  Nations,  and  that  the  conference  itself  has  no  power 
to  grant  membership  in  the  Labor  Organization;  in  view  also  of  the  action  of  the 
supreme  council  in  submitting  the  question  of  Finland’s  admission  to  the  judgment 
of  the  conference,  the  conference  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  immediate  admission 
of  Finland  as  a  member  of  the  Labor  Organization  is  desirable,  and  the  conference 
commends,  therefore,  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  League  of  Nations  the 
immediate  admission  of  Finland  to  the  League  upon  her  compliance  with  the  neces¬ 
sary  conditions 

2.  The  conference  welcomes  the  delegates  nominated  by  Finland  to  attend  the 
Washington  meeting,  and  invites  these  delegates  to  take  part  informally  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  conference. 

(Signed)  Newton  W.  Rowell. 


Appendix  to  the  Minority  Report. 

OPINION  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  APPLICA¬ 
TIONS  FOR  ADMISSION,  BY  MR.  MANLEY  O.  HUDSON, 
LEGAL  ADVISER. 

Membership  in  the  Labor  Organization  is  defined  in  article  387  of 
the  treaty.  The  original  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  are  to  be 


the  original  members  of  the  Labor  Organization,  and  in  the  future 
membership  in  the  League  of  Nations  is  to  involve  membership  in 
the  Labor  Organization.  It  will  be  impossible  for  a  member  of  the 
League  of  Nations  not  to  be  a  member  of  the  Labor  Organization.  It 
is  not  stated  that  it  will  be  impossible  for  the  Labor  Organization  to 
have  as  members  States  which  are  not  in  the  League  of  Nations; 
whether  this  can  be,  must  depend,  therefore,  upon  the  place  of 
article  387  in  the  treaty,  and  upon  the  effect  of  the  other  articles. 

Article  387  is  the  only  article  in  the  treaty  dealing  with  member¬ 
ship  in  the  Labor  Organization.  This  article  purports  to  be  complete 
in  itself,  and  it  is  not  expressly  modified  by  any  other  provision  in 
the  treaty.  It  seems  to  envisage  a  complete  parity  between  the 
League  of  Nations  and  the  Labor  Organization,  so  far  as  the  member¬ 
ship  is  concerned.  The  labor  conference  consists  of  representatives 
of  members  of  the  organization.  Membership  in  the  conference  itself 
is  not  envisaged  as  a  separate  thing.  The  conference  is  not  expressly 
given  control  of  the  membership  in  the  organization.  Since  the 
organization  consists  of  two  institutions,  and  since  the  governing 
body  is  in  some  respects  independent  of  the  conference,  it  would 
seem  clear  that  the  conference  has  not  been  given  implied  power  to 
change  the  membership  in  the  organization,  except  through  the 
method  provided  by  article  422  by  a  formal  amendment  to  this  part 
of  the  treaty. 

The  provision  that  the  conference  may  control  its  own  procedure 
does  not  in  any  way  cover  a  change  in  membership  of  the  conference. 
Membership  is  something  more  fundamental  than  procedure.  A 
change  in  membership  involves  a  variation  of  the  original  pact  of 
organization.  In  any  parliamentary  organization,  membership  is 
a  matter  of  vital  substance  going  to  the  root  of  its  existence. 

The  conclusion  must  be  that  membership  in  the  Labor  Organiza¬ 
tion  depends  upon  membership  in  the  League  of  Nations  as  a  whole, 
and  that  the  political  question  as  to  a  State’s  “sincere  intention  to 
observe  its  international  obligations,  ”  which  must  be  answered 
before  any  State  can  participate  in  any  international  organization, 
was  not  intended  to  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  any  body  except  the 
League  of  Nations  itself;  being  a  political  question,  it  is  plainly  for 
the  political  authority  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  judge. 

Moreover,  it  is  clear  that  the  Labor  Organization  is  intended  to  be 
a  part  of  the  League  of  Nations.  The  expenses  of  the  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation,  for  instance,  are  to  be  paid  out  of  the  general  funds  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  if  such  funds  shall  have  been  established  at  any 
time.  If  a  State  were  made  a  member  of  the  Labor  Organization 
now  without  also  being  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  if  the 
League  of  Nations  should  establish  general  funds  of  its  own,  such  a 
State  might  escape  all  responsibility  for  meeting  its  part  of  the 
expenses  of  the  Labor  Organization.  The  Labor  Organization  is 
spoken  of  in  article  427  as  being  “associated  with  the  League  of 
Nations,  ”  and  the  International  Labor  Conference,  which  is  part  of 
the  Labor  Organization,  is  spoken  of  in  article  392  as  being  a  “part 
of  the  organization  of  the  League.  ”  In  many  instances  officers  of 
the  League  of  Nations  have  jurisdiction  over  questions  arising  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  Labor  Organization.  The  secretary  general  of  the 
League,  the  permanent  court  of  the  League,  and  the  council  of  the 
League  are  all  given  functions  in  connection  with  the  proper  working 
of  the  Labor  Organization. 

These  integral  relations  between  the  Labor  Organization  and  the 
League  of  Nations  lead  one  to  the  conclusion  that  the  treaty  was 
designed  to  make  the  privilege  of  participating  in  the  work  of  the 
Labor  Organization  depend  upon  a  State's  meeting  the  general 
political  requirements  which  may  be  demanded  for  its  becoming  a 
member  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Furthermore,  this  integral  rela¬ 
tion  would  indicate  that  membership  in  the  Labor  Organization  is  in 
itself  one  of  the  inducements  which  may  be  held  out  to  States  to 
fulfill  the  political  requirements  necessary  to  becoming  members 
of  the  League  of  Nations. 

The  action  already  taken  by  this  conference  with  reference  to  Ger¬ 
many  and  Austria  is  not  a  precedent.  This  action  was  expressly 


212 


APPENDIX 


based  upon  an  agreement  entered  into  by  the  allied  and  associated 
powers  with  Germany  and  Austria  before  the  signatures  of  the  treaties 
of  peace.  That  agreement  was  altogether  in  the  nature  of  an  excep¬ 
tion  to  the  strict  provisions  of  the  treaties  of  peace,  an  exception  made 
to  induce  the  signature  of  those  treaties.  It  was  in  no  sense  an  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  language  of  the  treaties.  Nor  was  it  intended  to 
have  any  general  significance  beyond  the  precise  situation  of  Ger¬ 
many  and  Austria. 

It  is  significant  that  there  is  nowhere  any  provision  for  the  accession 
or  adhesion  of  States  to  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  separately.  Yet 
the  covenant  of  the  League  of  Nations  contains  a  provision  for  the 
adhesion  of  States  to  that  part  of  the  treaty.  The  absence  of  any 
such  provisions  for  accession  or  adhesion  to  the  labor  section  of  the 
treaty  clearly  indicates  an  intention  that  membership  in  the  Labor 
Organization  should  not  be  possible  apart  from  membership  in  the 
League  of  Nations;  and  it  supports  the  view  expressed  above  that 
article  387  concerning  membership  in  the  Labor  Organization  is 
complete  in  itself. 

The  practical  results  of  the  admission  to  the  Labor  Organization  of 
a  State  which  is  not  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations  must  not  be 
neglected.  If,  for  instance,  Finland  is  now  admitted  to  member¬ 
ship  in  the  Labor  Organization,  she  would  not  be  formally  bound  to 
carry  out  the  obligations  which  the  other  members  of  the  Labor 
Organization  would  be  under.  The  treaty-making  power  of  the 
Government  of  Finland  would  not  have  committed  Finland  to  the 
undertaking  carefully  spelled  out  in  the  labor  provisions  of  the  treaty, 
by  which  all  of  the  other  States  are  bound.  Even  Germany  and 
Austria,  by  their  signatures  to  the  treaties,  after  the  agreements  as  to 
their  own  participation,  have  accepted  in  a  formal  and  binding  way 
the  obligations  of  the  labor  provisions  of  the  treaty.  If  Finland  were 
admitted  without  any  formal  adhesion  by  her  Government,  she 
might  later  escape  the  very  important  obligations  contained  in 
article  405,  paragraph  5,  in  article  413,  and  in  article  421.  Nor  is  it 
possible  for  Finland  to  become  formally  bound  by  any  part  of  the 
treaties  of  peace.  Adhesion  to  a  part  of  a  treaty  is  possible  only  if 
the  treaty  itself  provides  for  such  adhesion. 

Since  we  have  no  provision  for  the  adhesion  of  Finland  to  this  part 
of  the  treaty,  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  Finland  can  become 
legally  bound  by  the  obligations  of  a  member  of  the  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation,  even  if  the  treaty-making  powers  in  the  Finnish  Govern¬ 
ment  were  to  act  formally  in  its  behalf. 

It  is  significant  also  that  the  labor  section  of  the  treaty  contains 
no  provision  for  the  land  of  vote  necessary  for  the  admission  of  new 
members  to  the  Labor  Organization.  In  the  covenant,  it  is  expressly 
provided  in  article  1  that  a  new  member  can  be  admitted  only  on  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  the  assembly.  In  the  labor  section  of  the  treaty, 
article  403,  it  is  stipulated  that  “except  as  otherwise  expressly  pro¬ 
vided  in  this  part  of  the  present  treaty,  all  matters  shall  be  decided 
by  a  simple  majority  of  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present.  ” 
The  argument,  therefore,  that  Finland  can  be  admitted  by  the  con¬ 
ference  involves  the  astonishing  result  that  this  most  vital  matter 
would  be  decided  by  a  majority  vote. 

Although  it  has  been  concluded  that  Finland  can  not  be  admitted 
by  the  conference  to  membership  in  the  Labor  Organization,  it  does 
not  follow  that  the  Finnish  delegates  who  have  come  to  Washington 
can  not  be  admitted  to  participation  in  the  deliberations  of  the 
present  conference.  Just  as  the  conference  has  invited  certain 
representatives  of  American  organizations  to  attend  its  meetings,  it 
may  now  open  its  doors  to  the  delegates  of  Finland  and  permit  them 
to  take  part  in  its  deliberations.  The  Finnish  delegates  might  take 
part  by  serving  on  the  committees  of  the  conference  as  assessors, 
according  to  article  404,  but  they  could  not  vote  as  members  of  the 
conference.  It  is  submitted  that  this  action  is  all  Finland  is  entitled 
to  until  she  becomes  a  member  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

(Signed)  Manley  0.  Hudson, 

Legal  Adviser. 

November  4,  1919. 


III. 

REPORT  ON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  LUXEMBURG  AND  THE 
DOMINICAN  REPUBLIC,  AND  ON  MOTION  OF  MR.  ELI- 
ZALDE  RELATING  TO  THE  ADMISSION  OF  MEXICO. 

The  commission  found  itself  unable  to  recommend  the  admission 
of  the  three  countries  named  above.  The  conference  has  received 
no  official  application  from  the  Governments  concerned.  The  fact 
that  some  delegates  representing  workers’  or  employers’  organiza¬ 
tions  are  now  in  Washington,  and  have  made  through  some  third 
party  a  request  for  admission,  can  not  be  held  to  affect  the  position. 
Decisions  taken  by  the  conference  will  impose  some  obligation, 
at  least  morally,  on  the  States  members  of  the  organization.  It 
is  therefore  the  States,  through  their  Governments,  and  not 
individual  organizations  of  employers  and  workers,  which  become 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization.  It  is  therefore 
important  that  applications  should  be  entertained  only  if  they  are 
submitted  in  due  form  by  the  Government  concerned. 

Mr.  Elizalde  attended  the  final  meeting  of  the  commission  and 
supported  his  motion  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  Mexico.  But  the 
commission  was  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  no  application  for 
admission  could  be  considered  unless  made  by  the  Government 
concerned. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  the  following  resolution  was 
unanimously  adopted : 

The  commission,  having  before  it  no  official  application  for  admission  to  the  con¬ 
ference  from  the  Governments  of  Luxemburg,  the  Dominican  Repubie.and  Mexico, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  no  recommendation  as  to  their  admission  would  be  competent 

(Signed  on  behalf  of  the  commission) 

Newton  W.  Rowell, 

Chairman. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  MINORITY  REPORT. 

1.  Since  the  preparation  of  the  report  of  the  Commission  on  Appli¬ 
cations  for  Admission  my  attention  has  been  drawn  to  the  proceed¬ 
ings  of  the  plenary  session  of  the  peace  conference  held  at  Paris  on 
April  11,  1919,  when  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  was  approved. 
These  proceedings  throw  such  an  important  light  upon  the  question 
under  consideration  that  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  bring  them  to  the 
notice  of  the  conference  by  way  of  a  supplementary  minority  report. 

2.  Article  387  of  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  was  originally  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  peace  conference  by  the  commission  of  the  peace  con¬ 
ference  on  international  labor  legislation  as  article  1  of  the  draft 
labor  convention.  It  was  so  presented  with  the  commission’s  report, 
dated  March  24,  1919,  and  it  then  read  as  follows: 

Chapter  1.  Organization. 

Article  t.  The  high  contracting  parties,  being  the  States  members  of  the  Leagueof 
Nations, hereby  decide  to  establish  a  permanent  organization  for  the  promotion  of 
the  objects  setforth  in  the  preamble,  and  for  this  purpose  hereby  accept  the  pro¬ 
visions  contained  in  the  following  articles. 

3.  This  original  draft  of  the  labor  convention  as  presented  by  the 
commission  also  contained  the  following  article  as  article  36: 

Art.  36.  Any  State  not  a  party  to  this  convention  which  may  hereafter  become  a 
member  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  be  deemed  ipso  facto  to  have  adhered  to  this 
convention. 

4.  It  was  thus  apparent  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  peace 
conference  that  the  International  Labor  Organization  and  the  League 
of  Nations  should  be  coterminous  in  respect  of  membership.  The 
convention  was  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  the  peace  con¬ 
ference  at  the  plenary  session  of  April  11,  1919,  and  Mr.  Barnes 
moved  a  resolution  that  the  convention  be  adopted.  Mr.  Barnes, 
in  moving  this  resolution,  as  acting  chairman  of  the  commission  on 
international  labor  legislation,  spoke  as  follows  concerning  the  labor 
organization: 

Now  let  me  say  a  few  words  about  its  main  provisions.  First  of  all,  its  boundaries 
are  made  to  coincide  with  those  of  the  League  of  Nations.  We  have  two  reasons  for 


APPENDIX 


213 


this.  First,  because  in  doing  that  the  League  of  Nations  is  thereby  invested  with 
the  duties  of  a  positive  nature  and  associated  with  the  everyday  life  of  the  community; 
and,  secondly,  all  the  nations  in  the  League  are  brought  into  world  cooperation  for 
industrial  improvement  and  thereby  a  favorable  impression  will  be  created  on  labor 
in  all  countries,  because  the  impression  will  be  created  that  the  peace  conference  is 
seriously  regarding  this  labor  problem. 

5.  But  in  order  to  make  the  intention  entirely  clear  the  plenary 
session  adopted  the  following  amendment  to  this  resolution  (the 
amendment  was  moved  by  Sir  Robert  Borden,  Prime  Minister  of 
Canada) : 

The  conference  authorizes  the  drafting  committee  to  make  such  amendments  as 
may  be  necessary  to  have  the  convention  conform  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nationsin  the  character  of  its  membership  and  in  the  method  of  adherence. 

6.  As  the  result  or  this  action  of  the  peace  conference  at  its  plenary 
session  of  April  11,  1919,  the  drafting  committee  combined  article  1 
and  article  36  into  a  new  article  1,  reading  as  follows: 

Article  1.  A  permanent  organization  is  hereby  established  for  the  promotion  of 
the  objects  set  forth  in  the  preamble. 

The  original  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  be  the  original  members  of  this 
organization,  and  hereafter  membership  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  carry  with  it 
membership  of  the  said  organization. 

The  drafting  committee  accordingly  struck  out  the  original  article 
36  of  the  draft  labor  convention.  In  this  form  article  1  of  the  labor 
convention  wa«  incorporated  as  article  387  in  the  treaty  of  peace  as 
signed. 

7.  These  proceedings  show  beyond  question  that  it  was  the  con¬ 
sidered  and  definite  decision  of  the  allied  and  associated  powers 
at  the  peace  conference  that  membership  in  the  International  Labor 
Organization  could  only  be  acquired  through  membership  in  the 
League  of  Nations  and  through  adherence  to  the  covenant  of  the 
League.  They  show  in  fact  that  membership  in  the  two  organiza¬ 
tions  was  clearly  intended  to  be  identical. 

8.  The  fact  that  the  peace  conference,  for  reasons  which  appeared 
satisfactory,  agreed  to  make  a  special  arrangement  for  the  admission 
of  Germany  and  Austria  to  the  Labor  Organization  on  condition  of 
their  signing  and  ratifying  the  treaty  of  peace  and  thereby  accepting 
all  its  obligations,  affords  no  grounds  for  holding  that  this  labor 
conference  is  entitled  to  admit  to  full  membership  another  nation 
with  which  no  such  agreement  has  been  made,  which  has  not  signed 
or  adhered  to  the  obligations  set  out  in  the  peace  treaty,  and  which 
can  not  do  so  until  formally  admitted  to  the  League  of  Nations. 

(Signed)  Newton  W.  Rowell. 

Washington,  November  11,  1919. 


COMMISSION  ON  STANDING  ORDERS. 

Chairman,  Mr.  E.  Mahaim  (Belgium). 

Government  delegates,  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spain);  Mr.  Louis  James 
Kershaw  (India);  Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim  (Belgium). 

Employers’  delegates,  Mr.  Goineau  (France);  Dr.  S.  Miall  (Great 
Britain);  Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade  (Netherlands). 

Workers’  delegates,  Mr.  P.  M.  Draper  (Canada);  Mr.  Conrad  Ilg  (Swit¬ 
zerland);  Mr.  R.  Tayerle  (Czecho-Slovakia). 

Secretary,  Mr.  E.  J.  Phelan  (Great  Britain). 


REPORTS  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  STANDING  ORDERS. 

First  Report. 

DRAFT  OF  STANDING  ORDERS, 

i. 

General  Observations. 

Before  dealing  with  the  alterations  in  the  standing  orders  proposed 
by  the  commission,  it  may  be  useful  to  make  a  few  general  obser¬ 
vations. 


1.  The  standing  orders  in  question  constitute  the  domestic  rules 
of  the  conference.  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  constitution 
of  the  conference  has  been  laid  down  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  part  13. 
The  standing  orders  accordingly  can  only  deal  with  those  details  of 
its  procedure  for  which  the  treaty  could  not  provide,  and  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  treaty  have  not  been  included  in  them  except  in  so 
far  as  seemed  necessary  in  order  to  make  the  context  clear. 

2.  The  organizing  committee,  in  drawing  up  the  draft  standing 
orders,  and  the  commission,  in  amending  them,  have  been  faced  with 
considerable  difficulties  on  account  of  the  difference  in  the  parlia¬ 
mentary  practice  of  the  various  countries.  It  has  not  been  possible 
to  find  in  every  case  a  rule  which  everyone  will  regard  as  satisfac¬ 
tory.  This  fact  should  be  borne  in  mind  and  it  should  be  recognized 
that  the  procedure  followed  in  any  one  country  or  group  of  countries 
could  not  be  inserted  in  the  standing  orders.  The  standing  orders 
are,  in  fact,  in  some  degree  a  compromise  which  the  commission  has 
endeavored  to  make  as  simple  and  as  satisfactory  as  possible. 

3.  The  standing  orders  now  submitted  are  intended  to  operate  in 
the  future,  that  is,  at  subsequent  sessions  of  the  conference.  The 
existence  of  the  governing  body  and  of  the  International  Labor 
Office  have  accordingly  been  assumed,  and  the  provisions  printed  in 
italics  in  the  draft  orders,  which  were  inserted  especially  for  the 
Washington  conference,  have  been  struck  out. 

4.  The  commission  has  attempted  to  profit  by  the  experience 
gained  during  the  actual  sittings  of  the  conference. 

II. 


Explanation  of  the  Motives  for  the  Proposed  Modifications 
in  the  Draft  of  Standing  Orders. 

Article  1. 

The  commission  is  of  opinion  that  in  view  of  the  terms  of  the 
treaty  of  peace  (art.  382,  p.  2)  it  can  not  be  said  that  the  conference 
was  composed  of  the  delegates  and  technical  advisers.  It  was  also 
considered  desirable  to  employ  the  exact  terms  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  (art.  389,  p.  2)  and  paragraph  2  of  the  original  draft  orders  has 
been  replaced  by  them. 

Article  2. 

No  change. 

Article  3. 

Some  discussion  took  place  in  the  commission  as  to  whether 
it  was  desirable  that  the  rule  laid  down  in  the  first  paragraph  of 
this  article  should  have  some  form  of  sanction  behind  it.  The  only 
sanction  possible  appears  to  be  to  refuse  to  admit  a  delegate  whose 
credentials  have  not  been  deposited  beforehand,  as  required  by  the 
rule.  The  commission  was  of  opinion,  however,  that  a  sanction  of 
this  kind  would  be  too  severe  and  it  is  proposed  that  the  text  should 
be  retained  as  it  stands,  pending  further  experience  of  its  application 
in  practice.  The  words  “by  delegates”  in  paragraph  3  of  article  3, 
have  been  struck  out.  The  commission  was  of  opinion  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  provide  that  the  right  of  protest  should  be  confined  to 
delegates,  and  it  was  thought  desirable  that  the  practice  followed 
at  the  Washington  conference  should  be  retained.  Paragraph  5  has 
been  incorporated  in  paragraph  3,  as  this  seems  a  more  logical  order. 


No  change. 


Articles  4  and  5. 
Article  6. 


The  commission  attaches  great  importance  to  this  article,  which 
deals  with  the  parliamentary  procedure  of  the  conference.  It  con¬ 
sidered  that  it  was  desirable  to  lay  down  the  different  stages  which 
the  discussion  of  a  draft  convention  or  recommendation  should  pass 
in  order  that  such  draft  convention  or  recommendation  should  be 
finally  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  treaty  of  peace. 

With  this  object  the  commission  proposed  to  lay  down  in  the 
standing  orders  the  different  phases  of  the  discussion  and  of  the 
adoption  of  such  texts: 


214 


APPENDIX 


1.  The  preliminary  consideration  of  a  draft  convention  or  recom¬ 
mendation  as  a  result  of  which  it  may  be  adopted  as  a  basis  of 
discussion. 

2.  The  discussion  of  the  articles  of  the  draft,  one  by  one,  and  of 
amendments  to  them. 

3.  Reference  to  the  drafting  committee. 

4.  Final  adoption. 

The  commission  was  of  opinion  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  to 
withdraw  the  right  to  propose  further  amendments  at  a  certain  stage 
in  order  to  avoid  the  undue  prolongation  of  the  discussion  and  its 
repetition  in  whole  or  in  part. 

Article  7. 

A  small  alteration  has  been  made  in  paragraph  2  in  order  to  secure 
that  in  future  the  commission  on  selection  shall  continue  to  carry 
out  the  work  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  has  been  done  by  it  during 
the  present  conference. 

Paragraph  3  has  been  modified  in  order  to  expressly  reserve  to  the 
conference  the  right  of  electing  the  members  of  the  committee  of 
selection,  a  right  which  it  possesses  in  the  case  of  all  other  com¬ 
missions. 

The  object  of  the  alteration  suggested  in  the  last  paragraph  is  to 
make  it  clear  that  the  right  of  delegates  to  appoint  substitutes  is  not 
restricted  to  the  case  in  which  two  sittings  coincide. 

The  commission  also  discussed  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
governing  body  should  not,  at  future  conferences,  undertake  the 
portion  of  the  work  carried  out  at  this  conference  by  the  committee 
on  selection.  It  was  finally  agreed  not  to  take  any  decision  on  this 
important  question  but  to  leave  it  to  be  solved  if  necessary  later  in 
the  light  of  the  experience  of  future  conferences. 

Article  8. 

A  small  alteration  providing  explicitly  for  the  admission  of  the 
press  has  been  made. 

Article  9. 

In  paragraph  2,  the  commission  proposes  to  provide  explicitly  that 
in  order  to  maintain  order  and  insure  the  observance  of  the  standing 
orders,  the  President  shall  be  enabled  to  employ  “such  means  as 
circumstances  may  demand.”  Otherwise,  the  powers  of  the  President 
in  this  respect  would  appear  insufficient. 

The  words  “pronounce  the  closure  of  discussion  ”  have  been  struck 
out  since,  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  article  14,  they  appear  to  be 
unnecessary.  In  paragraph  3  the  words  “if  he  is  himself  a  delegate  ” 
have  been  inserted  in  order  to  make  the  application  of  the  rule  clear, 
and,  for  the  same. reason,  a  sentence  has  been  added  giving  the  same 
right  to  vice  presidents  when  they  take  the  place  of  president. 

A  paragraph  has  been  added  providing  that  the  conference  shall 
be  presided  over  by  the  vice  presidents  in  turn  in  the  absence  of  the 
president. 

Article  10. 

The  alterations  proposed  in  this  article  have  been  suggested  to  the 
commission  by  the  actual  experience  of  the  conference. 

The  rule  provided  in  paragraph  3  that  no  speaker  should  address 
the  conference  more  than  once  on  the  same  subject  during  the  gen¬ 
eral  discussion,  and  this  principle,  which  appears  to  the  commission 
to  be  sound,  has  been  retained.  A  departure  from  it,  however,  is 
now  permitted  in  order  to  give  the  mover  of  a  resolution  a  right  of 
reply,  and  in  other  cases  if  the  conference  so  desires. 

In  paragraph  5  there  has  been  only  a  slight  change  in  the  wording, 
but  as  regards  paragraph  6,  the  commission  was  of  the  opinion  that 
in  conformity  with  what  would  appear  to  be  the  general  wish  of 
the  members  of  the  conference,  the  length  of  speeches  should  be 
limited  to  15  minutes,  except  when  the  conference  itself  consents 
to  an  extension. 

Article  11. 

Viscount  de  Eza,  the  Spanish  representative,  suggested  important 
amendments  to  this  article.  He  pointed  out  that  no  less  than  16 


Spanish-speaking  States  were  actually  represented  at  the  Confer¬ 
ence,  and  that  the  number  of  Spanish -speaking  delegates  might 
amount  to  one-third  of  the  members  of  the  conference.  Among 
these  delegates  there  would  always  be  workers  who  could  not  be 
expected  to  have  a  knowledge  of  French  or  English.  While  refusing 
to  institute  a  comparison  with  other  countries,  as  regards  popula¬ 
tion  or  industrial  importance,  the  Spanish  representative  claimed 
that  the  group  of  Spanish-speaking  States  should  be  treated  in 
accordance  with  their  importance  within  the  conference  itself. 
These  arguments,  which  were  put  forward  very  effectively,  lead 
up  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Spanish  language  should  be  recognized 
as  a  third  official  language. 

Nevertheless,  as  a  statesman  and  an  experienced  parliamentarian, 
Viscount  de  Eza  frankly  recognized  that  to  do  so  would  be  to 
increase  still  further  the  difficulties  in  an  assembly  such  as  the 
present  conference.  He  also  did  not  press  his  request  for  an  imme¬ 
diate  interpretation  of  the  speeches  during  the  sittings,  but  he 
demanded  as  a  minimum  definite  recognition  of  the  practice 
actually  adopted  as  regards  the  Spanish  language.  The  confer¬ 
ence  is  aware  that,  thanks  to  the  generosity  of  the  State  Depart¬ 
ment  and  of  the  Pan  American  Union,  the  translation  into  Spanish 
of  all  documents  distributed  to  the  conference — for  example,  the 
proceedings,  resolutions,  and  in  general  all  communications,  made 
to  the  members — has  been  insured.  A  special  staff,  which  does  not 
belong  to  the  secretariat,  has  been  engaged  for  this  purpose. 

The  commission  heard  evidence  on  this  question  from  Mr.  Butler, 
the  secretary  general,  who  stated  that  the  continuation  of  the  present 
practice  as  regards  the  Spanish  language  did  not  present  insurmount¬ 
able  difficulties,  but  would  involve  considerable  expense;  if  it  were 
definitely  adopted  it  would  be  difficult  to  refuse  similar  facilities  as 
regards  other  languages.  The  secretary  general  also  stated  that  he 
was  afraid  that  if  the  translation  into  Spanish  was  made  by  the 
secretariat,  the  secretariat  would  in  reality  have  to  undertake  the 
responsibility  of  producing  a  third  official  text  of  the  same  authorita¬ 
tive  character  as  the  French  and  English  texts.  To  this  Viscount 
de  Eza  replied  that,  in  the  first  place,  if  it  should  be  found  necessary, 
a  subsidy  from  the  Spanish-speaking  States  might  be  considered  as 
possible;  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  having  withdrawn  his  demand 
that  Spanish  should  be  a  third  official  language,  he  did  not  claim 
that  the  Spanish  text  should  possess  the  same  authoritative  character 
as  the  texts  in  the  other  two  languages,  and  the  responsibility  of  the 
secretary  general  would  accordingly  only  be  that  of  insuring  a  trans¬ 
lation  which  should  be  as  accurate  as  possible. 

Mr.  Tayerle  and  Mr.  Ilg  pointed  out  that  if  a  special  privilege  were 
accorded  to  the  Spanish  language,  it  might  be  expected  that  there 
would  be  a  great  number  of  claims  for  similar  treatment  in  respect 
of  other  languages,  and  they  quoted  as  examples  German  and  the 
group  of  Slav  languages. 

Viscount  de  Eza  replied  that  however  great  might  be  the  number 
of  inhabitants  or  of  workers  speaking  these  languages,  they  would 
never  have  in  the  conference  itself  anything  like  the  same  number 
of  delegates  as  the  Spanish-speaking  peoples,  since  Spanish  was  the 
official  language  of  a  score  of  States. 

It  was  also  pointed  out  that  the  organizing  of  future  conferences 
would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  International  Labor  Office.  It  was  most 
probable  that  the  International  Labor  Office  would  issue  its  publica¬ 
tions  in  more  than  two  languages.  Article  396  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
states  in  paragraph  4,  “It  (the  International  Labor  Office)  will  edit 
and  publish  in  French  and  English,  and  in  such  other  languages  as  the 
governing  body  may. think  desirable,  a  periodical  paper  *  * 
There  is  no  doubt  that  Spanish  will  be  one  of  these  languages,  and 
that  consequently  all  the  preliminary  documents  will  have  been 
submitted  to  the  delegates  in  a  number  of  languages  sufficiently 
large  to  meet  such  claims. 

In  view  of  the  above  considerations  the  commission  was  of 
opinion  that  the  practice  actually  followed  as  regards  Spanish  should 
be  provided  for  in  the  rules,  it  being  understood  that  the  governing 
body,  if  it  thought  it  advisable,  should  be  able  to  follow  the  same 


APPENDIX 


215 


course  as  regards  other  languages.  No  argument  is  required  to  sup¬ 
port  the  conclusion  that  the  introduction  of  a  third  official  language 
is  impossible. 

Article  12. 

A  slight  alteration  in  drafting  has  been  made  in  paragraph  2. 

Article  13. 

This  article  is  entirely  new,  and  has  been  suggested  to  the  com¬ 
mission  as  a  result  of  the  experience  of  the  actual  sittings  of  the 
conference.  The  commission  wished  to  lay  down  clearly  the 
rights  of  the  delegates  as  regards  the  resolutions,  amendments,  and 
motions,  since  the  terms  employed  and  the  parliamentary  usages 
in  this  respect  vary  greatly  in  the  different  countries. 

Article  14. 

This  article  has  been  modified  as  a  result  of  the  experience  gained 
in  the  conference  and  also  because  article  10,  paragraph  6,  now 
limits  the  length  of  the  speeches. 

It  appeared,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  speaker  should  not  be 
interrupted  in  the  course  of  his  speech  by  a  motion  for  the  closure, 
since  his  speech  could  not  exceed  15  minutes.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  seemed  most  undesirable  that  a  motion  for  the  closure  should  be 
made  before  a  speech  had  been  translated,  since  it  would  seem 
essential  that,  in  every  case,  the  interpretation  of  a  speech  should 
be  insured. 

Article  15. 


It  is,  however,  of  opinion  that  the  solution  of  the  present  difficulty 
should  be  sought  by  an  appeal  to  the  good  will  and  the  spirit  of  self- 
sacrifice  of  the  claimants. 

The  commission  was  unanimously  of  opinion  that  the  appointment 
of  the  governing  body  was  one  of  the  principal  tasks  of  the  Wash¬ 
ington  conference.  It  of  the  greatest  importance  that  the  per¬ 
manent  labor  organization  should  be  definitely  set  up  and  the 
constitution  of  the  governing  body  is  the  first  essential  step. 

November  18,  1919. 

(Signed)  Ernest  Mahaim,  President. 

(Signed)  E.  J.  Phelan,  Secretary. 


PROPOSED  NEW  TEXT  OF  THE  STANDING  ORDERS. 

Article  1. 

composition  of  the  conference. 

The  conference  consists  of  all  the  delegates  duly  appointed  by  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization.  Each  delegate 
may  be  accompanied  by  advisers  who  shall  not  exceed  two  in  num¬ 
ber  for  each  item  on  the  agenda  of  the  meeting. 

Seats  in  the  conference  room  shall  be  assigned  to  the  delegates 
and  their  advisers  by  the  governing  body. 

Article  2. 

PROVISIONAL  OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 


In  this  article  there  has  been  a  small  change  in  paragraph  4  and 
in  consequence  a  slight  change  in  the  last  paragraph.  It  appears  to 
be  necessary  to  provide  that  the  President  should  be  able  to  cause 
a  record  vote  to  be  taken  when  there  was  doubt  as  to  the  result  of  a 
vote  by  a  show  of  hands. 

Article  16. 


The  conference  shall  be  opened  by  the  president  of  the  governing 
body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  assisted  by  the  officers  of  the 
same  body.  These  provisional  officers  will  continue  to  act  until 
officers  have  been  duly  appointed  by  the  conference. 

Article  3. 


Slight  alteration  in  wording. 

Article  17. 


The  French  text  of  article  403  of  the  treaty  of  peace  does  not  appear 
at  first  sight,  to  correspond  exactly  with  the  English  text.  The  lat¬ 
ter  says,  in  paragraph  2,  “the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present” 
and,  in  paragraph  3,  in  contradistinction  to  paragraph  2,  “  the  dele¬ 
gates  attending  the  conference.”  In  the  first  case,  it  evidently 
refers  to  the  delegates  present  at  the  sitting. 

The  words  “les  delegues  presents  de  la  conference”  should  be 
understood  as  meaning  “  les  delegues  de  la  conference  presents  a  la 
seance”  (delegates  of  the  conference  present  at  the  sitting). 

To  make  it  perfectly  clear,  an  example  may  be  taken.  Suppose 
the  conference  consists  of  120  delegates.  In  order  that  any  vote 
should  be  valid  the  total  of  the  votes  cast  for  and  against  must  be  at 
least  60.  But,  if  there  are  only  60  delegates  present  at  the  sitting,  a 
majority  of  31  votes  is  sufficient  to  decide  any  question  in  respect  to 
which  a  two-thirds  majority  is  not  required  by  the  treaty. 


No  change. 


Article  18. 
Article  19. 


The  part  of  the  rule  requiring  the  printing  of  a  list  of  the  names 
of  technical  advisers  present  at  the  sitting  has  been  struck  out  for 
the  reason  that  it  appeared  sufficient  to  record  the  names  of  the  dele¬ 
gates  and  of  technical  advisers  who,  as  substitutes,  have  the  right  of 
vote. 

Article  20. 

The  commission  discussed  at  length  the  situation  arising  as  a 
result  of  the  protests  made  by  certain  States  as  regards  the  list  of 
the  eight  States  of  chief  industrial  importance.  It  considered 
whether  modifications  should  be  made  in  the  standing  orders  on 
this  point,  but  after  careful  consideration  it  was  decided  to  leave 
the  text  as  it  stands,  since  it  was  only  to  operate  in  the  future. 


VERIFICATION  OF  CREDENTIALS. 

The  credentials  of  delegates  and  their  advisers  shall  be  deposited 
with  the  secretariat  of  the  International  Labor  Office  at  least  15 
days  before  the  date  fixed  for  the  opening  of  the  meeting  of  the 
conference. 

A  brief  report  upon  them  shall  be  submitted  by  the  president  of 
the  governing  body.  This  report  and  the  credentials  shall  be  open 
to  inspection  by  the  delegates  on  the  day  before  the  opening  of  the 
conference. 

Any  objections  raised  concerning  the  nomination  of  delegates  or 
advisers  shall  be  lodged  with  the  provisional  officers  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  during  the  opening  sitting  and  transmitted  by  them  to  a  com¬ 
mission  charged  with  the  verification  of  credentials,  elected  by  the 
conference,  and  consisting  of  a  government  delegate,  an  employers  ’ 
delegate  and  a  workers’  delegate. 

This  commission  shall  immediately  examine  those  cases  to  which 
attention  has  been  drawn  in  the  report  of  the  president  of  the  gov¬ 
erning  body,  or  by  individual  objections,  and  shall  present  an  early 
report. 

Any  delegate  or  adviser  to  whose  nomination  objection  has  been 
taken  retains  the  same  rights  as  other  delegates  and  advisers  until 
the  question  of  his  admission  has  been  finally  decided. 

Article  4. 

OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  officers  shall  consist  of  a  president  and  of  three  vice  presidents 
appointed  by  the  whole  of  the  delegates  to  the  conference.  The 
three  vice  presidents  shall  be  chosen  respectively  from  among  the 
delegates  of  the  Governments,  of  the  employers’  associations,  and  of 
the  workers’  associations. 

The  president  and  the  three  vice  presidents  should  be  of  different 
nationalities. 

Women  delegates  may  be  appointed  to  any  of  the  above  offices 
upon  exactly  the  same  terms  as  men. 


216 


APPENDIX 


Article  5. 

SECRETARIAT. 

The  secretarial  work  of  the  conference  shall  be  carried  -out  by 
officials  of  the  International  Labor  Office  appointed  for  the  purpose 
by  the  governing  body  of  the  said  office. 

The  director  of  the  International  Labor  Office  shall  be  the  sec¬ 
retary  general  of  the  conference  and  shall  be  responsible  for  the 
secretariat.  He  may  be  assisted  by  one  or  more  assistant  secretaries 
general  appointed  by  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor 
Office. 

The  secretariat  of  the  conference  will  be  responsible  inter  alia  for 
the  receiving,  printing,  circulation,  and  translation  of  documents, 
reports,  and  resolutions;  the  translation  of  speeches  at  the  sittings; 
the  taking,  printing,  and  circulation  of  the  verbatim  record  of  the 
proceedings  at  the  sittings;  the  custody  of  the  archives  of  the  con¬ 
ference;  the  publication  of  the  report  of  the  meetings;  and,  gener¬ 
ally,  for  all  other  work  which  the  conference  may  think  fit  to  intrust 
to  it. 

Article  6. 

ORDER  OF  PROCEDURE  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

After  consideration  of  the  report  presented  by  the  governing 
body,  and  as  provided  in  Article  XVI  (402)1  of  the  convention,  the 
conference  will  decide  as  to  the  retention  on  the  agenda  of  any 
item  to  which  objection  has  been  lodged  by  the  Government  of  a 
member  of  the  International  Labor  Organization.  The  conference 
shall  then  devote  a  portion  of  its  time,  not  extending  beyond  the 
third  sitting,  to  deciding  the  order  in  which  the  different  items  on 
the  agenda  shall  be  discussed  and  to  miscellaneous  business  such 
as  the  appointment  of  the  committee  of  selection  and  of  the  drafting 
committee. 

It  shall  be  competent  for  any  delegate  to  move  a  resolution  of 
which  due  notice  has  been  given  under  the  provisions  of  article  13 
of  those  rules  that  a  draft  convention  or  recommendation  relating 
to  an  item  of  the  agenda,  whether  it  has  been  prepared  by  the 
governing  body  or  not,  shall  be  adopted  as  the  basis  of  discussion. 

The  debate  on  such  resolution  shall  be  a  debate  on  the  general 
principles  of  the  draft  convention  or  recommendation,  and  if  such 
resolution  be  adopted  the  conference  shall  then  decide  whether  the 
draft  convention  or  recommendation  shall  be  considered  in  full 
conference  or  shall  be  referred  to  a  commission  for  report.  If  it 
be  considered  in  full  conference  each  clause  shall  be  placed  before 
the  conference  for  adoption.  During  the  debate  on  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  or  recommendation  no  motion,  other  than  a  motion  to  amend 
a  clause  of  such  draft  convention  or  recommendation  or  a  motion 
as  to  procedure,  shall  be  considered  by  the  conference  until  all  the 
clauses  have  been  disposed  of.  If  the  draft  convention  or  recom¬ 
mendation  be  referred  to  a  commission  the  conference  shall,  on 
receiving  the  report  of  the  commission,  proceed  to  consider  the 
draft  convention  or  recommendation,  clause  by  clause,  as  provided 
above.  During  the  discussion  of  a  draft  convention  or  recommen¬ 
dation,  clause  by  clause,  the  conference  may  remit  a  clause  or 
group  of  clauses  to  a  commission  for  report. 

The  clauses  of  the  draft  convention  or  recommendation  as  adopted 
by  the  conference  shall,  if  necessary,  then  be  submitted  to  the 
drafting  committee  for  the  preparation  of  an  amended  text  and  the 
draft  convention  or  recommendation  so  prepared  shall  be  circulated 
to  the  delegates. 

In  principle,  no  amendment  can  be  allowed  to  this  text  but  the 
president  after  consultation  with  the  three  vice  presidents  may  sub¬ 
mit  to  the  conference  amendments  which  have  been  handed  to  the 
secretary  the  day  after  the  distribution  of  the  text  as  revised  by  the 
drafting  committee. 

When  such  amendments  have  been  disposed  of  the  conference 
shall  forthwith  proceed  to  take  a  final  vote  on  the  adoption  of  the 


draft  convention  or  recommendation  as  provided  in  article  (19)  405 
of  the  convention. 

Article  7. 

COMMISSIONS. 

The  conference  may  deeide  to  set  up  special  commissions  for  any 
purpose  which  it  considers  desirable. 

A  committee  of  selection  composed  of  12  Government  delegatee, 
6  employers’  delegates,  and  6  workers’  delegates  shall  determine  the 
resolutions  to  be  discussed  at  each  sitting  and  shall  nominate  the 
members  of  commissions,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  conference. 

The  members  of  the  committee  of  selection  shall  be  elected  by 
the  conference  on  the  nomination  of  the  Government  delegates,  the 
employers’  delegates,  the  workers’  delegates,  respectively,  not  more 
than  one  in  each  class  belonging  to  the  same  country. 

An  official  of  the  secretariat  of  the  conference  shall  be  appointed 
to  act  as  secretary  to  each  commission. 

Each  commission  shall  appoint  a  chairman  and  a  reporter  to  pre¬ 
sent  the  results  of  its  deliberations  to  the  conference.  The  reporter 
may  be  an  adviser. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  sittings  of  a  commission  shall  not  take  place 
at  the  same  time  as  a  plenary  sitting  of  the  conference.  Delegatee 
may  appoint  substitutes  to  represent  them  on  commissions. 

Article  8. 

RIGHT  OF  ADMISSION  TO  SITTINGS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  sittings  of  the  conference  shall  be  public,  except  in  cases 
where  it  has  been  expressly  decided  to  the  contrary. 

At  public  sittings  arrangements  shall  be  made  by  the  secretary  of 
the  conference  for  the  accommodation  of  distinguished  visitors  and 
the  press. 

The  only  persons  authorized  to  enter  the  body  of  the  hall  besides 
delegates  and  advisers  shall  be; 

(1)  The  secretaries  or  interpreters  of  the  delegations,  who  shall 
not  exceed  one  in  number  for  each  delegation. 

(2)  The  Director  of  the  International  Labor  Office  and  the  officials 
of  the  office  who  have  been  appointed  to  the  secretariat  of  the  con¬ 
ference. 

Article  9. 

procedure;  functions  of  the  president. 

The  president  shall  pronounce  the  opening  and  closing  of  the 
sittings.  Before  proceeding  to  the  agenda,  he  shall  bring  before  the 
conference  any  communications  which  concern  it. 

He  shall  direct  the  debates,  maintain  order,  and  insure  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  the  standing  orders  by  such  means  as  circumstances  may 
demand,  accord  or  withdraw  the  right  to  address  the  conference,  put 
questions  to  the  vote,  and  announce  the  result  of  the  vote. 

The  president  shall  not  take  part  in  the  debates  and  shall  not  vote. 

If  he  is  himself  a  delegate,  he  may  appoint  a  substitute  delegate 
in  accordance  with  article  18  below. 

Vice  presidents  shall  be  entitled  to  exercise  the  same  right  on  the 
occasions  on  which  they  act  as  president. 

The  vice  presidents  shall  preside  in  rotation  at  those  sittings  or 
portions  of  sittings  at  which  the  president  is  unable  to  preside. 

.  Article  10. 

RIGHT  TO  ADDRESS  THE  CONFERENCE. 

No  delegate  may  address  the  conference  without  having  asked  and 
obtained  the  permission  of  the  president. 

Speakers  shall  be  called  upon  in  the  order  in  which  they  have 
signified  their  desire  to  speak. 

No  delegate  shall  speak  more  than  once  on  the  same  resolution, 
amendment,  or  motion  without  the  special  permission  of  the  con¬ 
ference,  provided,  however,  that  the  mover  of  a  resolution  shall  have 
the  right  to  speak  twice  unless  the  closure  has  been  adopted  in 
accordance  with  article  19  of  these  rules. 


1  The  numbers  given  in  the  parentheses  refer  to  the  treaty  of  peace 


APPENDIX 


217 


The  president  may  call  upon  a  speaker  to  resume  his  seat  if  his 
remarks  are  not  relevant  to  the  subject  under  discussion. 

A  delegate  may  rise  to  a  point  of  order  at  any  time  and  such  point 
of  order  shall  be  immediately  decided  by  the  president  in  accordance 
with  the  standing  orders. 

No  speech  shall  exceed  15  minutes  exclusive  of  the  time  required 
for  translation  except  with  the  special  consent  of  the  conference. 

Interruptions  and  audible  conversation  are  not  permitted. 

The  director  or  any  other  official  of  the  international  labor  office 
may  address  the  conference  if  invited  to  do  so  by  the  president. 

Article  11. 

LANGUAGES. 

The  French  and  English  languages  shall  be  the  official  languages 
of  the  conference. 

Speeches  in  French  shall  be  summarized  in  English,  and  vice 
versa,  by  an  interpreter  belonging  to  the  secretariat  of  the 
conference. 

A  delegate  may  speak  in  his  own  language,  but  his  delegation 
must  provide  for  the  translation  of  a  summary  of  his  speech  into 
one  of  the  two  official  languages  by  an  interpreter  attached  to  the 
delegation. 

The  summary  thus  translated  will  then  be  rendered  in  the  other 
official  language  by  an  interpreter  belonging  to  the  secretariat. 

The  translation  and  circulation  of  documents  shall  be  in  the  hands 
of  the  secretariat,  and  the  practice  adopted  at  the  Washington  con¬ 
ference  as  regards  the  translation  and  distribution  of  documents  in 
the  Spanish  language  shall  be  continued. 

Article  12. 

DRAFTING  COMMITTEE. 

The  conference  shall  appoint  a  drafting  committee,  whose  duty 
it  will  be  to  draw  up,  in  the  form  of  draft  conventions  or  recom¬ 
mendations,  the  decisions  adopted  by  the  conference. 

The  same  committee  shall  insure  agreement  between  the  French 
and  English  texts  of  such  draft  conventions  or  recommendations  the 
translation  of  which  is  undertaken  by  the  secretariat. 

The  members  of  this  committee  shall  be  nominated  by  the  selec¬ 
tion  committee  provided  for  in  article  7. 

Article  13. 

RESOLUTIONS,  AMENDMENTS,  MOTIONS. 

Any  delegate  can  move  resolutions,  amendments,  or  motions  in 
accordance  with  the  following  rules: 

(а)  No  resolution  can  be  moved  at  any  session  of  the  conference 
unless  a  copy  has  been  handed  in  to  the  secretariat  of  the  conference 
at  least  two  days  previously.  • 

On  receipt  of  such  notice  the  resolution  shall  be  circulated  by  the 
secretariat  on  the  day  following  that  in  which  it  is  received. 

(б)  Amendments  to  a  resolution  may  be  moved  without  previous 
notice,  provided  that  a  copy  is  handed  in  to  the  clerk  of  the  con¬ 
ference. 

If  an  amendment  to  a  resolution  has  been  moved,  no  other  amend¬ 
ment,  other  than  an  amendment  to  the  original  amendment,  can 
be  moved  until  the  original  amendment  has  been  disposed  of. 

A  delegate  may  withdraw  an  amendment  which  he  has  proposed 
imless  an  amendment  to  it  is  under  discussion  or  has  been  adopted . 

(c)  In  the  case  of  motions  as  to  procedure,  no  previous  notice  need 
be  given,  nor  need  a  copy  be  handed  in  to  the  clerk  of  the  conference. 

No  resolution  or  amendment  or  motion  can  be  discussed  unless  it 
has  been  seconded. 

“Motions  as  to  procedure”  include  the  following:  A  motion  to 
refer  the  matter  back;  a  motion  to  postpone  consideration  of  the 
question;  a  general  motion  of  adjournment;  a  motion  to  adjourn  a 
debate  on  a  particular  question;  a  motion  that  the  conference  pro¬ 
ceed  with  the  next  item  on  its  program  for  the  sitting. 


Article  14. 

CLOSURE. 

A  delegate  may  move  the  closure  of  the  discussion  whether  other 
delegates  have  signified  their  wish  to  speak  or  not,  and  the  president 
shall  be  bound  to  put  it  to  the  meeting  if  at  least  20  delegates  signify 
their  support  by  rising  in  their  places.  If  application  is  made  for 
permission  to  speak  against  the  closure,  it  may  only  be  accorded 
to  a  single  speaker. 

The  closure  shall  not  be  moved  while  a  speaker  is  addressing 
the  conference  nor  until  his  speech  has  been  translated. 

Article  15. 

METHODS  OF  VOTING. 

The  conference  shall  vote  by  a  show  of  hands  or  by  a  record  vote. 

Voting  shall  be  by  a  show  of  hands  in  all  cases  in  which  a  record 
vote  is  not  required  by  the  present  standing  orders. 

Votes  by  a  show  of  hands  shall  be  taken  by  the  secretariat  and  the 
result  announced  by  the  president. 

In  case  of  doubt  as  to  the  result,  the  president  may  cause  a  record 
vote  to  be  taken. 

A  record  vote  shall  be  taken  in  all  cases  in  which  a  majority  of 
two-thirds  of  the  votes  is  required  by  the  convention. 

A  record  vote  may  also  be  taken  on  any  question  if  a  request  to 
that  effect  has  been  made  in  writing  by  not  less  than  20  delegates 
and  handed  in  to  the  president. 

Record  votes  shall  be  taken  by  calling  upon  each  individual 
delegate,  each  delegation  voting  in  turn  in  the  French  alphabetical 
order  of  the  names  of  the  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation. 

The  vote  shall  be  recorded  by  the  secretariat  and  announced  by 
the  president. 

The  names  of  the  delegates  voting  in  a  record  vote  shall  be  in¬ 
serted  in  the  verbatim  report  of  the  sitting. 

Except  as  provided  in  paragraph  4  of  this  article  it  shall  not  be 
within  the  competence  of  the  president  to  propose  a  record  vote. 

Article  16. 

QUORUM. 

In  accordance  with  Article  XVII  (403)  of  the  convention,  a  vote 
is  not  valid  if  the  number  of  votes  cast  is  less  than  half  the  number 
of  delegates  attending  the  conference.  This  number  shall  be  deter¬ 
mined  after  the  presentation  of  the  brief  report  referred  to  in  para¬ 
graph  2  of  article  3.  If  any  delegate  is  not  finally  admitted,  the 
number  shall  be  modified  accordingly  for  the  subsequent  sittings. 

Article  17. 

MAJORITIES. 

Subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  preceding  article  of  the  rules  a 
simple  majority  of  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present  at  the 
sitting  shall  be  sufficient  in  all  cases  in  which  a  larger  majority  is 
not  specially  required  by  other  articles  of  the  convention. 

The  conference  can  not  decide  that  more  than  a  simple  majority 
shall  be  necessary  in  other  than  these  cases. 

Article  18. 

SUBSTITUTES. 

In  accordance  with  Article  III  (389)  of  the  convention  a  delegate 
may  by  notice  in  writing  addressed  to  the  president  appoint  one  of 
his  advisers  to  act  as  his  substitute.  Such  notice  must  be  addressed 
to  the  president  before  the  sitting,  unless  a  new  question  comes  up 
for  discussion  in  the  course  of  the  sitting.  The  notice  shall  indicate 
the  sittings  at  which  the  substitute  wall  act. 

Substitutes  may  take  part  in  the  debates  and  may  vote  under  the 
same  conditions  as  delegates. 


218 


APPENDIX 


Article  19. 

VERBATIM  REPORTS. 

A  verbatim  report  shall  be  printed  at  the  conclusion  of  each  sitting 
by  the  secretariat.  There  shall  be  appended  to  the  report  the  list 
of  delegates  present  at  the  sitting  together  with  the  texts  adopted 
and  the  results  of  the  votes. 

Each  delegate  may  demand  the  right  to  revise  that  part  of  the  re¬ 
port  containing  a  speech  which  he  has  made  before  it  is  printed  in 
final  form.  In  order  that  any  proposed  corrections  may  be  inserted 
they  should  be  handed  in  to  the  secretariat  during  the  evening  fol¬ 
lowing  the  sitting. 

The  verbatim  reports  will  be  signed  by  the  president  of  the  con¬ 
ference  and  the  secretary  general. 

Article  20. 

ELECTION  OF  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  GOVERNING  BODY  OF  THE  INTER¬ 
NATIONAL  LABOR  OFFICE. 

The  conference  will  proceed  every  three  years  in  the  course  of  its 
meeting  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  appoint  the  members  of  the 
governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  in  accordance  with 
Article  VII  (393)  of  the  convention. 

For  this  purpose  the  Government  delegates  of  all  the  members, 
excepting  those  of  the  eight  members  of  the  chief  industrial  impor¬ 
tance  within  the  meaning  of  the  said  article,  shall  meet  in  order  to 
choose  the  four  members  whose  Government  shall  nominate  repre¬ 
sentatives  to  the  governing  body. 

The  delegates  of  the  employers  and  of  the  workers  shall  meet  sepa¬ 
rately  in  order  to  appoint  their  six  representatives  on  the  govern¬ 
ing  body.  These  representatives  shall  be  appointed  by  name. 

In  the  event  of  a  vacancy  in  the  governing  body  arising  among 
the  representatives  of  employers’  or  workers’  organization,  and  if  the 
governing  body  has  not  provided  for  the  method  of  filling  such 
vacancies  in  accordance  with  Article  VII  (393)  of  the  convention, 
the  delegates  at  the  conference  belonging  to  the  category  concerned, 
shall  assemble  during  the  course  of  the  next  meeting  in  order  to  fill 
the  vacancy  in  their  representation  on  the  governing  body. 

If  the  governing  body  has  provided  for  the  filling  of  vacancies 
according  to  the  same  article  of  the  convention,  the  conference  shall 
proceed  to  the  approval  of  the  decisions  taken  by  the  governing 
body  in  this  respect. 

If  their  decisions  are  not  approved  by  the  conference,  steps  shall 
immediately  be  taken  to  make  fresh  appointments  under  the  con¬ 
ditions  provided  above  in  regard  to  the  triennial  reappointment  of 
the  governing  body. 


Appendix. 

DRAFT  STANDING  ORDERS  PREPARED  BY  THE  ORGAN¬ 
IZING  COMMITTEE. 

Article  1. 

COMPOSITION  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  conference  consists  of  all  the  delegates  and  advisers  duly 
appointed  by  the  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

The  number  of  advisers  present  at  one  time  at  each  sitting  shall 
be  limited  to  not  more  than  two  for  each  delegate. 

Seats  in  the  conference  room  shall  be  assigned  to  the  delegates  and 
their  advisers  by  the  governing  body. 

(In  the  case  of  the  first  meeting,  seats  will  be  assigned  by  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.) 

Article  2. 

PROVISIONAL  OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  conference  shall  be  opened  by  the  president  of  the  governing 
body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  assisted  by  the  officers  of  the 


same  body.  These  provisional  officers  will  continue  to  act  until 
officers  have  been  duly  appointed  by  the  conference. 

(For  the  1919  meeting,  the  provisional  officers  will  consist  of  a 
delegate  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  as  president  and  of 
the  president  of  the  International  Organizing  Committee  as  vice 
president.) 

Article  3. 

VERIFICATION  OF  CREDENTIALS. 

The  credentials  of  delegates  and  their  advisers  shall  be  deposited 
with  the  secretariat  of  the  International  Labor  Office  at  least  15 
days  before  the  date  fixed  for  the  opening  of  the  meeting  of  the 
conference. 

A  brief  report  upon  them  shall  be  submitted  by  the  president  of 
the  governing  body.  This  report  and  the  credentials  shall  be  open 
to  inspection  by  the  delegates  on  the  day  before  the  opening  of  the 
conference. 

Any  objections  raised  by  delegates  concerning  the  nomination  of 
delegates  or  advisers  shall  be  lodged  with  the  provisional  officers  of 
the  conference  during  the  opening  sitting  and  transmitted  by  them 
to  a  commission  charged  with  the  verification  of  credentials. 

The  commission  shall  immediately  examine  those  cases  to  which 
attention  has  been  drawn  in  the  report  of  the  president  of  the  govern¬ 
ing  body,  or  by  individual  objections,  and  shall  present  an  early 
report. 

The  commission  will  consist  of  three  delegates  appointed  by  the 
conference. 

Any  delegate  or  adviser  to  whose  nomination  objection  has  been 
taken  retains  the  same  rights  as  other  delegates  and  advisers  until 
the  question  of  his  admission  has  been  finally  decided. 

(In  the  case  of  the  Washington  conference  the  International  Or¬ 
ganizing  Committee  will  submit  a  report  on  the  day  before  the 
opening  of  the  conference  dealing  with  all  credentials  which  have 
reached  it  irrespective  of  the  date  of  receipt.) 

article  4. 

OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  officers  shall  consist  of  a  president  and  of  three  vice  presidents 
appointed  by  the  whole  of  the  delegates  to  the  conference.  The 
three  vice  presidents  shall  be  chosen  respectively  from  among  the 
delegates  of  the  Governments,  of  the  employers’  associations,  and  of 
the  workers’  associations. 

The  president  and  the  three  vice  presidents  should  be  of  different 
nationalities. 

Women  delegates  may  be  appointed  to  any  of  the  above  offices  in 
exactly  the  same  way  as  men. 

Article  5. 

SECRETARIAT. 

The  secretarial  work  of  the  conference  shall  be  carried  out  by 
officials  of  the  International  Labor  Office  appointed  for  the  purpose 
by  the  governing  body  of  the  said  office. 

The  director  of  the  International  Labor  Office  shall  be  the  secretary 
general  of  the  conference  and  shall  be  responsible  for  the  secretariat. 
He  may  be  assisted  by  one  or  more  assistant  secretaries  general  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 

The  secretariat  of  the  conference  will  be  responsible  inter  alia  for 
the  receiving,  printing,  circulation,  and  translation  of  documents, 
reports,  and  resolutions;  the  translation  of  speeches  at  the  sittings; 
the  taking,  printing,  and  circulation  of  the  shorthand  notes  of  the 
proceedings  at  the  sittings;  the  custody  of  the  archives  of  the  con¬ 
ference;  the  publication  of  the  report  of  the  meetings;  and,  generally 
for  all  other  work  which  the  conference  may  think  fit  to  entrust  to  it 

(As  regards  the  1919  conference,  the  functions  of  the  secretary 
general  of  the  conference  shall  be  intrusted  to  a  provisional  secretary 
general  appointed  by  the  American  Government  in  agreement  with 
the  International  Organizing  Committee. 


APPENDIX 


219 


The  personnel  of  the  secretariat  shall  be  chosen  in  the  same  way 
and  as  far  as  possible  from  among  the  persons  who  have  belonged  to 
the  secretariat  of  the  organizing  committee  or  to  the  secretariat  of 
the  International  Commission  on  Labor  Legislation  of  the  Peace 
Conference,  or  from  among  American  officials  dealing  with  the  prepa¬ 
rations  for  the  conference. 

The  number  and  functions  of  the  persons  forming  the  secretariat 
of  the  first  session  of  the  conference  shall  be  settled  by  agreement 
between  the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  International 
Organizing  Committee.) 

Article  6. 

ORBER  OP  PROCEDURE  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

After  consideration  of  the  report  presented  by  the  governing  body, 
and  as  provided  in  Article  XVI  (402)  of  the  convention,  the  confer¬ 
ence  will  dec-de  as  to  the  retention  on  the  agenda  of  any  item  to 
which  objection  has  been  lodged  by  the  Government  of  a  member  of 
the  International  Labor  Organization. 

It  will  also  decide,  as  provided  in  the  same  article,  as  to  the  inclu¬ 
sion  of  items  on  the  agenda  of  the  next  meeting. 

The  conference  will  decide  the  order  in  which  th ;  different  items 
on  the  agenda  shall  be  discussed. 

Article  7. 

COMMISSIONS. 

The  conference  may  decide  to  set  up  special  commissions  for  any 
purpose  which  it  considers  desirable. 

A  committee  of  selection  composed  of  12  Government  delegates, 
6  employers’  delegates,  and  6  workers’  delegates  shall  nominate  the 
members  of  commissions,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  conference. 

The  members  of  the  committee  of  selection  shall  be  appointed 
respectively  by  the  Government  delegates,  the  employers’  delegates 
and  the  workers’  delegates,  not  more  than  one  in  each  class  belonging 
to  the  same  country. 

An  official  of  the  secretariat  of  the  conference  shall  be  appointed 
to  act  as  secretary  to  each  commission. 

Each  commission  shall  appoint  a  chairman,  and  a  reporter  to  pre¬ 
sent  the  results  of  its  deliberations  to  the  conference.  The  reporter 
may  be  an  adviser. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  sittings  of  the  commissions  shall  not  take 
place  at  the  same  time  as  the  plenary  sittings  of  the  conference. 
Where  in  exceptional  cases  the  sittings  of  a  commission  coincides 
with  a  plenary  sitting  of  the  conference  the  delegates  detained  at  the 
conference  may  appoint  substitutes  to  represent  them  on  the  com¬ 
mission  . 

Article  8. 

RIGHT  OF  ADMISSION  TO  SITTINGS  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  sittings  of  the  conference  shall  be  public,  except  in  cases 
where  it  has  been  expressly  decided  to  the  contrary. 

The  only  persons  authorized  to  enter  the  body  of  the  hall  besides 
delegates  and  advisers  shall  be: 

(1)  The  secretaries  or  interpreters  of  the  delegations,  who  shall  not 
exceed  one  in  number  for  each  delegation; 

(2)  The  Director  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  and  the  officials 
of  the  office  who  have  been  appointed  to  the  secretariat  of  the  con¬ 
ference. 

Article  9. 

PROCEDURE — FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  PRESIDENT. 

The  president  shall  pronounce  the  opening  and  closure  of  the  sit¬ 
tings.  Before  proceeding  to  the  agenda,  he  shall  bring  before  the 
conference  any  communications  which  concern  it. 

He  shall  direct  the  debates,  maintain  order  and  insure  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  the  standing  orders,  accord  or  withdraw  the  right  to  address 
the  conference,  pronounce  the  closure  of  discussions,  put  questions 
to  the  vote  and  announce  the  result  of  the  vote. 


The  president  shall  not  take  part  in  the  debates  and  shall  not  vote. 

He  may  appoint  a  substitute  delegate  in  accordance  with  article 
18  below. 

Article  10. 

RIGHT  TO  ADDRESS  THE  CONFERENCE. 

No  delegate  may  address  the  conference  without  having  previously 
asked  and  obtained  the  permission  of  the  president. 

Speakers  shall  be  called  upon  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  sig¬ 
nified  their  desire  to  speak. 

No  speaker  shall  address  the  conference  more  than  once  on  the 
same  subject  during  the  general  discussion. 

The  president  may  call  upon  a  speaker  to  resume  his  seat  if  his 
remarks  are  not  relevant  to  the  subject  under  discussion. 

When  a  motion  is  under  discussion,  a  delegate  may  rise  to  a  point 
of  order,  and  such  point  of  order  shall  be  immediately  decided  by-  the 
president  in  accordance  with  the  standing  orders. 

The  conference  may  limit  the  time  allowed  to  each  speaker. 

Interruptions  and  audible  conversation  are  not  permitted. 

The  director  or  any  other  official  of  the  International  Labor  Office 
may  address  the  conference  if  invited  to  do  so  by  the  president. 

Article  11. 

LANGUAGES. 

The  French  and  English  languages  shall  be  the  official  languages 
of  the  conference. 

Speeches  in  French  shall  be  summarized  in  English  and  vice  versa 
by  an  interpreter  belonging  to  the  secretariat  of  the  conference. 

A  delegate  may  speak  in  his  own  language,  but  his  delegation 
must  provide  for  the  translation  of  a  summary  of  his  speech  into  one 
of  the  two  official  languages  by  an  interpreter  attached  to  the  dele¬ 
gation. 

The  summary  thus  translated  will  then  be  rendered  in  the  other 
official  language  by  an  interpreter  belonging  to  the  secretariat. 

All  documents,  resolutions,  reports,  etc.,  circulated  to  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  conference  by  the  secretariat  shall  be  rendered  in  both 
French  and  English. 

Each  delegation  has  the  right  to  have  documents  circulated  in  its 
own  language,  but  the  secretariat  of  the  conference  will  not  be 
responsible  for  their  translation. 

Article  12. 

DRAFTING  COMMITTEE. 

The  conference  shall  appoint  a  drafting  committee,  whose  duty  it 
will  be  to  draw  up,  in  the  form  of  draft  conventions  or  recommenda¬ 
tions,  the  decisions  adopted  by  the  conference. 

The  same  committee  shall  ensure  agreement  between  the  French 
and  English  texts,  the  translation  of  which  is  undertaken  by  the 
secretariat. 

The  members  of  this  committee  shall  be  nominated  by  the  selec¬ 
tion  committee  provided  for  in  article  7. 

Article  13. 

NOTICE  OF  MOTIONS  OR  AMENDMENTS. 

All  amendments  or  motions  must  be  handed  in  to  the  secretariat 
of  the  conference.  They  will  be  printed  for  the  sitting  on  the  day 
following  that  on  which  they  have  been  handed  in. 

As  a  general  rule  no  amendment  or  motion  shall  be  discussed  nor 
made  the  subject  of  a  vote  in  the  course  of  a  sitting,  unless  it  has  been 
circulated  not  later  than  the  beginning  of  that  sitting  to  all  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Conference  as  provided  in  article  11  of  the  present  stand¬ 
ing  orders. 

The  president  may,  however,  permit  the  discussion  of  amendments 
dealing  with  minor  modifications  of  texts  under  discussion  or  of 


220 


APPENDIX 


motions  as  to  procedure,'  without  their  having  been  previously 
handed  in  and  circulated. 

Article  14. 

CLOSURE. 

A  delegate  may  at  any  time  move  the  closure  of  the  discussiop, 
whether  other  delegates  have  signified  their  wish  to  speak  or  not. 
If  application  is  made  for  permission  to  speak  against  the  closure,  it 
may  only  be  accorded  to  a  single  speaker. 

The  president  shall  take  the  sense  of  the  conference  on  the  motion, 
which  shall  be  decided  by  a  show  of  hands.  If  a  majority  of  the 
delegates  present  vote  in  favor  of  the  closure,  the  president  shall 
pronounce  the  closure  of  the  sitting  accordingly. 

Article  15. 

METHODS  OF  VOTING. 

The  conference  shall  vote  by  a  show  of  hands  or  by  a  record  vote. 

Voting  shall  be  by  a  show  of  hands  in  all  cases  in  which  a  record 
vote  is  not  required  by  the  present  standing  orders. 

Votes  by  a  show  of  hands  shall  be  taken  by  the  secretariat  and  the 
result  announced  by  the  president. 

In  case  of  doubt  as  to  the  result,  a  record  vote  may  be  taken. 

A  record  vote  shall  be  taken  in  all  cases  in  which  a  majority  of 
two-thirds  of  the  votes  is  required  by  the  convention. 

A  record  vote  may  also  be  taken  on  any  question  if  a  request  to 
that  effect  has  been  made  in  writing  by  not  less  than  20  delegates 
and  handed  in  to  the  president. 

Record  votes  shall  be  taken  by  calling  upon  each  individual  dele¬ 
gate,  each  delegation  voting  in  turn  in  the  French  alphabetical  order 
of  the  names  of  the  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

The  vote  shall  be  recorded  by  the  secretariat  and  announced  by 
the  president. 

The  names  of  the  delegates  voting  in  a  record  vote  shall  be  inserted 
in  the  verbatim  report  of  the  sitting. 

It  shall  not  be  within  the  competence  of  the  president  to  propose 
a  record  vote. 

Article  16. 

QUORUM. 

In  accordance  with  Article  XVII  (403)  of  the  convention,  a  vote 
is  not  valid  if  the  number  of  votes  cast  is  less  than  half  the  number 
of  delegates  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  conference.  This  number 
shall  be  determined  after  the  presentation  of  the  brief  report  referred 
to  in  paragraph  2  of  article  3.  If  any  delegate  is  not  finally  admitted, 
the  number  shall  be  modified  accordingly  for  the  subsequent  sittings. 

Article  17. 

MAJORITIES. 

In  accordance  with  Article  XVII  (403)  of  the  convention,  a  simple 
majority  of  the  votes  cast  by  the  delegates  present  shall  be  sufficient 
in  all  cases  in  which  a  larger  majority  is  not  specially  required  by 
other  articles  of  the  convention. 

The  conference  can  not  decide  that  more  than  a  simple  majority 
shall  be  necessary  in  other  than  these  cases. 

Article  18. 

SUBSTITUTES. 

In  accordance  with  Article  III  (389)  of  the  convention,  a  delegate 
may  by  notice  in  writing  addressed  to  the  president  appoint  one  of 

>  “Motions  as  to  procedure”  include  the  following: 

Motion  to  amend  the  motion:  a  motion  to  refer  the  matter  hack;  a  motion  to  post¬ 
pone  consideration  of  the  question;  a  general  motion  of  adjournment;  a  motion  to 
adjourn  a  debate  on  the  particular  question;  a  motion  that  the  conference  proceed 
with  the  next  item  on  the  agenda  of  the  day. 


his  advisers  to  act  as  his  substitute.  Such  notice  must  be  addressed 
to  the  president  before  the  sitting,  unless  a  new  question  comes  up 
for  discussion  in  the  course  of  the  sitting.  The  notice  shall  indicate 
the  sitting  or  sittings  at  which  the  substitute  will  act. 

Substitutes  may  take  part  in  the  debates  and  may  vote  under  the 
same  conditions  as  delegates. 

Article  19. 

VERBATIM  REPORTS. 

A  verbatim  report  shall  be  printed  at  the  conclusion  of  each  sitting 
by  the  secretariat.  There  shall  be  appended  to  the  report  the  list 
of  delegates  and  advisers  present  at  the  sitting  together  with  the  texts 
adopted  and  the  results  of  the  votes. 

Each  delegate  may  demand  the  right  to  revise  that  part  of  the  re¬ 
port  containing  a  speech  which  he  has  made  before  it  is  printed.  In 
order  that  any  proposed  corrections  may  be  inserted,  they  should 
be  handed  in  to  the  secretariat  during  the  evening  following  the 
sitting. 

The  verbatim  reports  will  be  signed  by  the  president  of  the  con¬ 
ference  and  the  secretary  general. 

Article  20. 

ELECTION  OF  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  GOVERNING  BODY  OF  THE  INTER¬ 
NATIONAL  LABOR  OFFICE. 

The  conference  will  proceed  every  three  years  in  the  course  of  its 
meeting  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  appoint  the  members  of  the 
governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  in  accordance  with 
Article  VII  (393)  of  the  convention. 

For  this  purpose,  the  Government  delegates  of  all  the  members, 
excepting  those  of  the  eight  members  of  the  chief  industrial  impor¬ 
tance  within  the  meaning  of  the  said  article,  shall  meet  in  order  to 
choose  the  four  members  whose  Government  shall  nominate  repre¬ 
sentatives  to  the  governing  body. 

The  delegates  of  the  employers  and  of  the  workers  shall  meet 
separately  in  order  to  appoint  their  six  representatives  on  the  gov¬ 
erning  body.  These  representatives  shall  be  appointed  by  name. 

In  the  event  of  a  vacancy  in  the  governing  body  arising  among 
the  representatives  of  employers’  or  workers’  organizations,  and  if 
the  governing  body  has  not  provided  for  the  method  of  filling  such 
vacancies  in  accordance  with  Article  VII  (393)  of  the  convention, 
the  delegates  at  the  conference  belonging  to  the  category  concerned, 
shall  assemble  during  the  course  of  the  next  meeting  in  order  to  fill 
the  vacancy  in  their  representation  on  the  governing  body. 

If  the  governing  body  has  provided  for  the  filling  of  vacancies 
according  to  the  same  article  of  the  convention,  the-  conference  shall 
proceed  to  the  approval  of  the  decisions  taken  by  the  governing 
body  in  this  respect. 

If  their  decisions  are  not  approved  by  the  conference,  steps  shall 
immediately  be  taken  to  make  fresh  appointments  under  the  con¬ 
ditions  provided  above  in  regard  to  the  triennial  re-appointment  of 
the  governing  body. 


Second  Report. 

STATES  REPRESENTED  BY  GOVERNMENT  DELEGATES  ONLY- 

Sixteen  States  have  appointed  only  Government  delegates  to  take 
partin  the  Washington  conference,  viz,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Chile,  China, 
Colombia,  Ecuador,  Haiti,  Nicaragua,  Paraguay,  Persia,  Portugal, 
Roumania,  Salvador,  Siam,  Uruguay,  and  Venezuela.  This  situa¬ 
tion  has  called  forth  a  protest  from  the  workers’  delegates  on  the 
ground  that  as  a  result  of  the  course  followed  by  certain  Govern¬ 
ments,  the  proportional  strength  of  the  workers  in  the  conference 
has  been  lessened,  especially  as  each  Government  is  entitled  to  be 
represented  by  two  delegates. 

The  terms  of  reference  of  the  commission  on  this  point  were  not 
further  defined.  The  commission  considers  that  it  was  expected  to 


APPENDIX 


221 


discuss,  in  the  first  place,  whether  the  Governments  concerned  had 
the  right  to  appoint  Government  delegates  only;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  what  practical  step  could  be  taken  by  the  conference  itself. 

I.  Article  389  of  the  treaty  of  peace  states  that  the  conference— 
shall  be  composed  of  four  representatives  of  each  of  the  members  of  whom  two  shall  be 
Government  delegates  and  the  two  others  shall  be  delegates  representing,  respectively, 
the  employers  and  the  workpeople  of  each  of  the  members. 

The  treaty  also  adds  in  paragraph  3  of  the  same  article: 

The  members  undertake  to  nominate  non-Govemment  delegates  and  advisers  chosen 
in  agreement  with  the  industrial  organizations,  if  such  organizations  exist,  which  are 
most  representative  of  employers  or  workpeople,  as  the  case  may  be,  in  their  respective 
countries. 

Finally,  paragraph  2  of  article  390  states: 

If  one  of  the  members  fails  to  nominate  one  of  the  non-Govemment  delegates  whom 
It  is  entitled  to  nominate,  the  other  non-Govemment  delegate  shall  be  allowed  to  sit 
and  speak  at  the  conference,  but  not  to  vote. 

Paragraph  3  of  the  same  article  provides  that  the  same  course  shall 
be  followed  when  a  non-Government  delegate  is  refused  admission 
under  the  provisions  of  article  389. 

The  commission  is  of  opinion  that  these  provisions  of  the  treaty 
constitute  a  positive  obligation  on  the  Governments  to  appoint  four 
delegates,  and  that  Governments  are  not,  in  principle,  entitled  to 
appoint  only  Government  delegates  if  the  conditions  in  their  coun¬ 
tries  are  those  envisaged  in  article  389,  that  is,  if  employers’  and 
workers’  organizations  exist. 

The  treaty,  however,  does  not  stipulate  any  penalty  for  the  case 
in  which  this  obligation  is  not  fulfilled,  and  it  may  be  argued  that 
failure  to  fulfill  this  obligation  would  not  deprive  the  Government 
delegates  of  the  right  to  vote. 

The  commission  is  of  opinion  that  article  390,  which  applies  to  the 
exceptional  case  in  which  a  non-Government  delegate  has  not  been 
appointed,  must  be  strictly  interpreted.  It  wishes  to  point  out, 
however,  that  even  in  this  case  the  Government  delegates  retain 
their  right  to  vote. 

The  commission  does  not,  therefore,  consider  that  the  conference 
has  the  right  to  deprive  Government  delegates  who  are  not  accom¬ 
panied  by  non-Government  delegates  of  the  right  to  vote,  and  no 
action  seems  possible  against  a  Government  which  has  not  fulfilled 
the  obligation  in  question. 

As  regards  those  countries  in  which  there  are  no  organizations 
representative  of  workers  and  employers,  there  appears  no  reason  to 
question  the  right  of  the  Government  delegates,  who  are  not  accom¬ 
panied  by  other  delegates  to  vote. 

In  any  case,  from  the  practical  point  of  view,  there  would  appear 
to  be  very  little  to  be  said  in  favor  of  depriving  the  Government 
delegates  concerned  of  their  right  to  vote.  The  effect  of  this  step 
would,  in  fact,  be,  either  to  prevent  some  Governments  from  taking 
part  in  the  conference,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to  force  them  to  ap¬ 
point  four  delegates,  who  would  be,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  four  Govern¬ 
ment  delegates. 

II.  The  commission  thought  it  desirable  to  examine  the  reasons 
which  had  caused  the  Governments  concerned  to  appoint  only 
Government  delegates,  and  it  accordingly  requested  them  to  furnish 
it  with  the  necessary  information.  The  results  of  this  inquiry  may 
be  briefly  summarized  as  follows: 

(a)  Certain  Governments  were  unable  to  send  to  Washington  non- 
Government  delegates  in  time,  either  because  they  considered  that 
it  was  necessary  to  await  the  ratification  of  the  peace  treaty  (Uru¬ 
guay),  or  for  other  reasons  (Portugal,  Roumania). 

(b)  Other  Governments  stated  that  in  their  countries  there  were 
no  workers’  organizations,  and  considered  that  in  such  circumstances 
it  was  not  intended  that  they  should  appoint  non-Government  dele¬ 
gates.  This  was  the  case,  for  example,  as  regards  Colombia,  Ecua¬ 
dor,  Siam,  and  Persia. 

(c)  Others  communicated  with  the  organizations  which  they  rec¬ 
ognized  as  representative,  and  these  organizations  either  did  not 
reply  or  did  not  wish  to  nominate  delegates.  This  was  the  case  as 
regards  Salvador. 


(d)  Other  States  explained  that  it  was  merely  lack  of  time  and 
the  insufficiency  of  necessary  preparations  which  had  forced  them  to 
send  incomplete  delegations.  Such,  for  example,  was  the  case  as 
regards  China,  whose  representative  explained  that  the  Government 
was  making  efforts  to  secure  cooperation  between  the  existing 
workers’  organizations  in  order  to  be  able  to  obtain  in  future  the 
joint  nomination  of  a  delegate. 

(e)  The  statement  made  by  the  minister  of  Haiti,  Mr.  Moravia, 
was  of  considerable  interest.  He  explained  that  his  country  was 
agricultural;  that  there  were  no  industrial  organizations  of  em¬ 
ployers  or  workers;  and  that  there  was  very  little  likelihood  of  them 
being  formed  for  some  considerable  time.  His  country  was  particu¬ 
larly  interested  in  the  question  of  unemployment,  and  he  was 
attending  the  conference  ad  audiendum  and  not  taking  part  in  the 
votes. 

Briefly,  therefore,  the  greater  number  of  countries  without  non- 
Government  delegates  would  appear  to  have  adopted  this  course  for 
reasons  of  a  temporary  character. 

III.  In  these  circumstances  the  commission  unanimously  agreed 
to  a  proposal  of  Mr.  Ilg,  and  are  of  the  opinion  that: 

(1)  As  regards  the  present  conference  no  steps  need  be  taken. 

(2)  That  the  Government  delegates  of  the  States  concerned  can 
not  be  deprived  of  their  right  to  vote. 

Ernest  Mahaim,  President. 

E.  J.  Phelan,  Secretary. 

November  19,  1919. 


COMMITTEE  ON  DRAFTING. 

Dr.  Felipe  Espil  (Argentina). 

Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim  (Belgium). 

Mr.  L.  C.  Christie  (Canada). 

Mr.  Max  Lazard  (France). 

Capt.  Edgar  Abraham  (India). 

Dr.  Manley  O.  Hudson  (United  States). 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  DRAFTING. 

The  drafting  committee  has  tentatively  approved  the  attached 
drafts  of  formal  clauses  to  be  embodied  in  any  draft  convention 
which  may  be  put  forth  by  the  International  Labor  Conference. 
The  committee  wishes  to  have  these  draft  clauses  circulated  to  the 
various  commissions  of  the  conference  in  order  that  the  commissions 
may  know  the  lines  along  which  the  drafting  committee  has  been 
working  and  the  subjects  which  it  tliinks  should  be  covered.  Various 
commissions  may  have  some  suggestions  on  these  subjects  in  con¬ 
nection  with  their  bearing  upon  special  fields.  The  drafting  com¬ 
mittee  would  be  very  pleased  to  have  any  suggestions  from  the 
various  commissions  before  it  proceeds  to  any  final  drafting  of  these 
clauses. 

TENTATIVE  FORM  FOR  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTIONS  ADOPTED 
BY  THE  LABOR  CONFERENCE. 

The  general  conference  of  the  Labor  Organization  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  having  been  convened  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  at  Washington,  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, 
and  having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  the  “application  of  the  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  or  of 
the  48-hour  week,”  which  is  the  first  item  in  the  agenda  for  the 
Washington  meeting  of  the  conference,  and  having  determined  that 
these  proposals  shall  take  the  form  of  a  draft  international  conven¬ 
tion,  adopts  the  following  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the 
members  of  the  labor  Organization,  in  accordance  with  Part  XIII 
of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and  the  treaty  of  Saint 
Germain  of  September  10,  1919. 


222 


APPENDIX 


Article  - . 

Each  country  which  ratifies  or  accedes  to  this  convention  under¬ 
takes  to  adopt  or  to  propose  to  its  legislative  authority  the  adoption 
of  effective  measures  to  insure  the  strict  execution  of  the  terms  of 
the  present  convention. 

Article - . 

This  convention,  of  which  the  French  and  English  texts  are  both 
authentic,  shall  be  ratified  by  the  members  of  the  Labor  Organization 
under  the  conditions  set  forth  in  Part  XIII  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
of  June  28,  1919,  and  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10, 
1919.  The  formal  ratification  shall  be  communicated  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  shall  be  registered  with  the 
secretariat. 

Article  - . 

Any  fully  self-governing  country  which  is  not  a  member  of  the 
Labor  Organization  may  accede  without  reservation  to  this  conven¬ 
tion.  The  act  of  accession  shall  be  communicated  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  shall  be  registered  with  the 
secretariat. 

Article - . 

Each  country  which  is  bound  by  this  convention  engages  to  apply 
it  to  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  possessions  which  are  not  fully 
self-governing,  (1)  except  where,  owing  to  the  local  conditions,  the 
convention  is  inapplicable,  or  (2)  subject  to  such  modifications  as 
may  be  necessary  to  adapt  this  convention  to  local  conditions.  Each 
country  shall  notify  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the  action  taken 
in  respect  of  each  of  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  possessions  which 
are  not  fully  self-governing. 

Article  - ■. 

As  soon  as  the  ratifications  of - - —  members  of  the  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation  (including  at  least - — —  of  the  countries  whose  Governments 

are  represented  in  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor 
Office)  have  been  registered  with  the  secretariat,  the  secretary  general 
of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  so  notify  all  the  members  of  the  Labor 
Organization. 

Article  - . 

This  convention  shall  not  come  into  force  until  ( - -  months  after) 

such  notification  has  been  issued  by  the  secretary  general  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  and  it  shall  then  be  binding  only  upon  those 
countries  which  have  registered  their  ratification  or  accession  with 
the  secretariat.  Thereafter  this  convention  will  come  into  force  for 
any  other  country,  at  the  date  when  its  ratification  or  accession  is 
registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  - . 

A  country  which  has  ratified  or  acceded  to  this  convention  may 

denounce  it  after  the  expiration  of - years  after  the  date  on  which 

the  convention  first  comes  into  force,  by  an  act  communicated  to  the 
secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  registered  with  the 
secretariat.  Such  denunciation  shall  not  take  effect  until  one  year 
after  the  date  on  which  it  has  been  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  - . 

The  general  conference  of  the  Labor  Organization  may,  at  any  time 
after  five  years  from  the  date  on  which  this  convention  shall  first 
come  into  force,  propose  the  revision  or  modification  of  this  conven¬ 
tion;  and  in  any  case,  at  least  every  10  years  after  the  date  on  which 
this  convention  shall  first  come  into  force,  the  governing  body  of  the 
International  Labor  Office  shall  consider  the  desirability  of  placing  on 
the  agenda  of  the  conference  the  question  of  the  revision  or  modifi¬ 
cation  of  this  convention. 


COMMISSION  ON  HOURS  OF  WORK. 

Chairman . Mr.  Tom  Shaw  (Great  Britain). 

Government  delegates _ Mr.  Ernest  Mahaim  (Belgium). 

Hon.  G.  D.  Robertson  (Canada) 

Mr.  Arthur  Fontaine  (France). 

Rt.  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes  (Great  Britain). 
Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens  (Netherlands). 

Employers’  delegates . Mr.  Jules  Carlier  (Belgium). 

Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons  (Canada). 

Mr.  Louis  Gu6rin  (France). 

Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain). 
Mr.  D.  Schindler  (Switzerland). 

Workers’  delegates . Mr.  Corneille  Mertens  (Belgium). 

Mr.  Tom  Moore  (Canada),  substitute  for 
Mr.  Draper. 

Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux  (France). 

Mr.  Jan  Oudegeest  (Netherlands). 

Mr.  Tom  Shaw  (Great  Britain). 

Secretary,  Dr.  G.  Pardo  (Italy). 


REPORT  ON  A  DRAFT  CONVENTION  RELATING  TO  THE  EIGHT- 
HOURS  DAT  AND  THE  FORTY-EIGHT  HOURS  WEEK. 

The  commission  appointed  by  the  conference  to  examine  the 
draft  convention  relating  to  the  establishment  of  the  eight-hour  day 
was  appointed  following  the  general  discussion  in  the  plenary  sitting. 
This  commission  was  to  examine  the  amendments  presented  by  the 
Government,  employers’,  and  workers’  delegates  to  the  draft  con¬ 
vention  worked  out  by  the  organizing  committee.  The  reporter  of 
the  commission  is,  therefore,  neither  required  to  present  the  general 
considerations  which  are  to  be  found  developed  at  length  in  the 
reports  of  the  plenary  sittings,  nor  is  he  required  to  present  the  com¬ 
parative  legislation  found  in  the  reports  of  the  Organizing  Committee. 
He  must  confine  himself  to  comments  on  the  differences  between  the 
text  proposed  by  the  eight  hours  commission  and  the  text  of  the 
original  text  of  the  Organizing  Committee. 

In  the  first  place  we  call  attention  at  once  to  the  fact  that  we  are 
not  submitting  recommendations,  but  a  draft  convention.  The 
commission  did  not  consider  recommendations  sufficient  in  dealing 
with  a  matter  which  is  already  the  subject  of  numerous  national 
laws.  The  word  “draft,”  however  is  exact  in  the  sense  that  our 
votes  do  not  establish  conventions  applicable  by  virtue  of  their 
being  our  resolutions  alone;  they  constitute  texts  to  be  submitted 
to  the  competent  authorities  in  the  various  States,  which  after  ex¬ 
amination  are  accepted  or  rejected  under  conditions  formulated  in 
article  405  of  the  peace  treaty  with  Germany  (art.  19  of  the  by-laws 
of  the  conference). 

Article  1. 

Paragraph  1  of  article  1  indicates  that  the  convention  shall  apply 
to  all  industrial  establishments  other  than  those  in  which  members 
of  the  family  only  are  employed.  Your  commission  proposes  to 
specify  all  industrial  establishments,  including  all  branches  thereof, 
public  or  private.  The  words  “public”  and  “private”  need  no 
comment.  Industrial  establishments  belonging  to  the  Government 
or  to  local  authorities  can  not  be  exempted  from  the  general  regula¬ 
tions  prescribed  for  private  establishments.  The  words  “including 
all  branches  thereof”  signify  that  the  entire  personnel  of  an  indus¬ 
trial  establishment  shall  come  under  the  provisions  of  the  text, 
whether  they  be  employed  in  the  manufacturing,  packing  or  shipping 
department,  the  drafting  and  designing  rooms,  or  the  office  which 
has  charge  of  correspondence,  etc.  The  industrial  establishment 
with  all  its  related  and  adjoining  departments  forms  a  whole,  and 
its  employees  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  law . 

This  definition  conforming  to  legislation  accepted  in  several 
countries,  is  the  more  necessary  in  that  the  commission  is  not  pro¬ 
posing  to  you  to  extend  the  draft  convention  to  include  commercial 


APPENDIX 


223 


establishments,  and  inasmuch  as  banks  and  administrative  offices 
with  their  numerous  personnel  are  not  subject  to  the  convention. 
In  refusing  to  extend  the  benefits  of  the  eight-hour  day  to  commercial 
establishments  at  the  present  time,  the  majority  of  the  commission 
based  their  decision  on  the  fact  that  its  application  would  be  diffi¬ 
cult  in  shops  and  small  stores,  and  also  on  the  fact  that  the  question 
vras  not  yet  ripe,  and  deserved  special  study. 

The  commission  did  not  consider  it  possible  to  regulate  the  length 
of  the  day  in  home  work.  The  majority  were  of  the  opinion  that 
control  of  the  hours  of  home  work  would  be  very  difficult  even  with 
frequent  inspection.  They  also  believed  that  the  question  of  con¬ 
trolling  home  work  would  arouse  violent  opposition.  In  a  word, 
the  sentiment  of  the  majority  was  that  home  work,  which  certain 
members  of  the  commission  wished  to  restrict  as  much  as  possible, 
oning  to  abuses  connected  with  it,  should  be  made  the  subject  of 
investigation  and  subsequent  recommendation  by  the  International 
Labor  Office. 

It  seems  necessary  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  only  workshops 
to  escape  the  provisions  of  the  text  are  those  where  only  members 
of  the  family  are  employed.  Where  a  single  worker  not  belonging 
to  the  family  is  employed,  the  workshop  would  come  under  the  provi¬ 
sions  of  the  convention,  and  this  interpretation,  which  is  the  correct 
one,  of  a  very  clear  text  is  aimed  at  all  subcontractors  who  take  work 
home  and  employ  coworkers  and  assistants  who  work  with  them 
under  conditions  which  are  too  often  deplorable. 

The  commission  proposes  to  make  a  few  additions,  explanatory  in 
character,  of  the  nonspecific  enumeration  of  industrial  establish¬ 
ments.  Thus  it  proposes  to  add  the  very  general  terms  “and  any 
other  works  for  the  extraction  of  minerals”  to  the  words  “mines 
and  quarries,  ”  article  1  (a),  which  have  a  restricted  meaning  in 
certain  national  legislation,  and  do  not  necessarily  include  open 
diggings  (open-pit  iron  mining),  salt  mines,  oil  wells,  etc.  In 
the  same  way  in  paragraph  (i>),  for  the  words  “the  production 
and  transformation  of  electricity”  we  substitute  the  more  general 
terms  “  the  production,  transformation,  and  transmission  of  power  in 
general;  electric,  hydraulic,  etc.”;  and  for  the  same  reason  we  add 
after  “  shipbuilding  ”  “establishments  concerned  with  the  demoli¬ 
tion  of  material,  ”  which  are  of  great  importance  in  certain  countries, 
notably  in  connection  with  ships  and  machinery.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  such  undertakings  were  in  no  way  excluded  by  the  list  of  the 
Organizing  Committee,  wliich  is  simply  explanatory  and  the  con¬ 
trolling  words  of  which  are  “all  industrial  establishments.”  The 
fundamental  defect  of  every  list  is  that  it  always  requires  to  be 
supplemented . 

In  article  1,  paragraph  (d),  it  is  not  a  question  of  an  explanatory 
modification,  but  of  a  basic  one  of  great  importance.  After  the 
words  “transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail”  the  com¬ 
mission  adds  “by  sea  or  inland  waterway.”  Limitation  of  the 
hours  of  work  on  ships  and  boats  is  prescribed  herein.  The  com¬ 
mission  added,  however,  at  the  end  of  the  paragraph,  the  following 
words: 

Provisions  relative  to  transport  by  sea  shall  be  determined  by  a  special  conference 
on  maritime  employment. 

In  regard  to  transportation  by  sea,  therefore,  it  is  only  a  question 
of  confirming  a  principle;  the  application  of  the  principle  will  be  in 
conformity  with  the  regulations  to  be  indicated  by  a  special  con¬ 
ference.  Moreover,  in  a  report  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  of 
selection  on  motions  relating  to  the  agenda  of  a  future  conference  you 
are  invited  to  express  your  opinion  on  holding  a  special  conference 
on  maritime  employment.  Therefore  I  need  not  emphasize  the 
matter  here. 

As  regards  inland  navigation,  I  must  emphasize  the  fact  that  the 
special  conference  will  concern  itself  only  with  transport  by  sea  and 
that  the  majority  of  the  commission  considered  that  the  provisions 
of  the  draft  convention  should  apply  to  inland  navigation. 

A  final  modification  is  to  be  noted  in  the  last  paragraph  of  arti¬ 
cle  1.  The  commission  says: 


“The  competent  authority  in  each  country  shall  determine  the 
lines  of  demarcation  between  industry  on  one  hand,”  instead  of 
“Legislation  in  each  country.”  In  the  French  text  the  word  “leg¬ 
islation”  includes  not  only  laws  proper,  but  also  regulations  issued 
by  virtue  of  legislative  authority.  It  was  not  the  same  as  the  words 
“national  law”  in  the  English  text,  and  the  majority  of  the  commis¬ 
sion  found  that  the  terms  employed  by  the  Organizing  Committee 
are  not  applicable  owing  to  the  constitutional  differences  existing 
in  the  countries  represented  at  the  conference. 

It  will  be  observed  that  as  a  result  of  the  definition  given  in  para¬ 
graph  1,  of  article  1,  and  from  specific  examples  listed  in  paragraphs 
(a),  (b),  (c),  and  (rf),  the  r61e  of  the  competent  authorities  is  very 
much  circumscribed. 

Article  2. 

The  commission  held  that  it  was  not  possible  to  ignore  the  fact 
that  the  principle  on  which  the  draft  convention  depends  is  as 
follows:  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  i.  e.,  that  the  normal 
working  day  is  8  hours  and  the  normal  working  week  48  hours. 
The  commission  proposes  to  state  explicitly  that  the  hours  of  work 
for  workers  shall  not  exceed  8  hours  per  day  and  48  hours  per 
week,  but  the  commission  retains  at  the  same  time  the  words  of  the 
draft  convention  of  the  Organizing  Committee,  namely,  “with  the 
exceptions  hereinafter  provided.”  Under  these  “exceptions” 
(which  some  of  the  members  of  the  commission  would  prefer  to  call 
“derogations,”  but  which  leave  no  doubt  as  to  their  meaning  and 
scope)  there  is  given,  in  an  explicit  fashion  and  excluding  all  dispute, 
opportunity  of  observing  in  practice  the  48-hour  week  with  a  half¬ 
day  holiday  under  clearly  determined  conditions  and  of  making 
equivalent  arrangements  involving  a  different  number  of  hours  for 
work  on  other  days  of  the  week.  Precautions  are  taken,  moreover, 
to  prevent  abuses  resulting  from  this  modification  of  the  length  of 
the  working  day.  The  text  adopted  in  this  connection  is  as  follows: 

Where  by  law,  custom,  or  agreement  between  employers’  and  workers’  organiza¬ 
tions  or  between  the  employers’  and  workers’  representatives,  where  no  such  organ¬ 
izations  exist,  the  hours  of  work  on  one  or  more  days  of  the  week  are  less  than  eight, 
the  limit  of  eight  hours  may  be  exceeded  on  the  remaining  days  of  the  week  by  the 
sanction  of  the  competent  authority  or  by  agreement  between  such  organizations  or 
representatives:  Provided,  however,  That  in  no  case  shall  the  daily  limit  of  eight  hours 
under  the  provisions  of  this  paragraph  be  exceeded  by  more  than  one  hour. 

This  paragraph  is  inserted  between  two  other  exceptions  provided 
for  in  article  2  of  the  text  of  the  Organizing  Committee,  the  first 
relating  to  persons  holding  positions  of  supervisory  or  managerial 
responsibility  or  employed  in  a  confidential  capacity,  and  the 
second  to  work  carried  on  by  a  succession  of  shifts.  Slight  modi¬ 
fications,  however,  have  been  made  by  the  commission  in  the  text 
as  proposed  by  the  Organizing  Committee  for  these  two  exceptions. 

With  regard  to  supervisory  and  managerial  personnel  and  persons 
in  a  confidential  capacity,  the  commission  struck  out  the  words 
“not  usually  employed  in  manual  labor.”  Several  members  were 
afraid  that  this  would  be  wrongly  interpreted  and  tended  to  exclude, 
quite  wrongly,  the  office  and  similar  personnel  of  industrial  estab¬ 
lishments  from  benefiting  by  this  law. 

The  modifications  made  in  the  second  exception  consist  in  sub¬ 
stituting  for  the  words  “48  hours  per  week”  the  words  “8  hours  per 
day  and  48  hours  per  week  ” ;  and  secondly,  changing  the  period  of 
four  weeks  originally  provided  for  to  a  period  of  three  weeks  or  less. 
Following  is  the  new  text  of  the  last  paragraph  of  article  2: 

Where  persons  are  employed  in  shifts  it  shall  be  permissible  to  employ  persons 
in  excess  of  8  hours  in  any  one  day  and  48  in  any  one  week,  provided  the  average 
number  of  hours  over  a  period  of  three  weeks  or  less  does  not  exceed  8  hours  per  day 
and  48  hours  per  week. 

It  has  been  shown  that  a  period  of  three  weeks  sufficed  for  work 
carried  on  by  three  shifts,  except  in  the  case  provided  for  in  article  4, 
for  processes  which  for  technical  reasons  can  not  be  interrupted,  to 
even  up  the  daily  and  weekly  average  of  hours  of  work  and  to  pro¬ 
vide  for  the  changing  of  shifts. 

Before  concluding  our  observations  relative  to  article  2,  we  ought 
to  mention  the  fact  that  the  calculation  of  the  duration  of  work  is 
provided  for  in  article  8  ( b )  of  the  draft  convention. 


224 


APPENDIX 


Article  3. 

In  article  3  it  is  definitely  stated  that  accidents  which  permit  the 
exceeding  of  the  limit  provided  for  in  article  2  include  both  those 
to  be  prevented  and  those  the  damage  of  which  needs  to  be  repaired. 
We  say: 

The  limit  in  the  number  of  work  ms:  hours  provided  for  in  article  2  may  be  exceeded 
in  the  case  of  accidents  actual,  or  threatened,  urgent  work  to  be  done  to  machinery 
or  plant,  etc. 

Attention  has  also  been  drawn  to  the  fact  that  the  English  version 
does  not  satisfactorily  translate  the  words  “travaux  d’urgence” 
of  the  French  version,  and  that  the  English  version  should  be 
altered.  Also,  it  was  recognized  that  the  following  words  of  the 
French  version,  “ou  en  cas  de  force  majeure,”  were  translated 
by  a  much  more  general  expression  in  English  which  might  lead  to 
abuses.  In  order  to  retain  the  exact  sense  of  the  words  “en  cas 
de  force  majeure,”  the  commission  decided  to  adopt  the  same  in  the 
English  version,  untranslated. 

The  commission  considered  that  after  this  correction  the  abuses 
which  were  foreseen  as  possible  and  feared  by  the  workers’  repre¬ 
sentatives  would  not  occur,  especially  since  the  end  of  the  sentence 
expresses  exactly  the  thought  of  the  framers  of  the  text: 

But  so  far  only  as  may  be  necessary  to  avoid  serious  interference  with  the  ordinary 
operation  of  the  establishment. 

Article  4. 

Article  4  relates  to  works  the  operation  of  which  is  necessarily 
continuous  for  technical  reasons,  such  as  blast  furnaces.  The 
majority  of  the  commission  considered  that  an  average  of  56  hours 
per  week  should  be  maintained  for  each  of  the  three  shifts  in  such 
works,  it  being  understood,  in  the  opinion  of  the  commission,  that 
the  national  laws  can,  by  means  of  special  holidays,  best  insure  to  the 
workers  in  these  industries  legitimate  compensating  leave  for  their 
weekly  day  of  rest.  The  commission,  however,  desired  to  state 
precisely  that  only  continuous  processes  should  benefit  by  the  ex¬ 
ception,  and  not  the  entire  undertaking  in  which  such  work  is 
carried  on.  Thus  for  the  words — “The  limit  of  48  hours  may  be 
exceeded  in  those  industries  or  processes  which  are  required  by 
reason  of  the  nature  of  the  industry  or  process  to  be  carried  on  con¬ 
tinuously,”  etc.,  there  have  been  substituted  the  words:  “The 
limit  of  hours  provided  for  in  article  2  may  be  exceeded  in  processes 
which  are  required,”  etc. 

The  commission  does  not  fail  to  appreciate  the  reasons  which  impel 
the  workers’  representatives  to  demand  a  more  regular  system  for 
workmen  employed  in  the  iron  and  steel  industry,  and  particularly 
the  system  provided  in  the  last  paragraph  of  article  2  for  work  in 
shifts.  But  for  work  which  can  not  be  interrupted,  work  which  in 
the  present  state  of  industrial  development  must  be  carried  on  seven 
days  in  the  week,  the  majority  of  the  commission  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  system  demanded  would  involve  great  difficulties  in  organ¬ 
ization  and  would  require  considerable  increase  in  the  number  of 
employees;  therefore,  the  commission  holds  that  many  countries  can 
not  overnight  solve  this  problem  of  carrying  out  the  convention  at 
the  present  moment  in  view  of  the  extensive  improvements  which 
would  have  to  be  introduced  into  the  iron  and  steel  industry  to  make 
the  eight-hour  shift  possible. 

The  commission  proposes  to  strike  out  the  last  paragraph  of  article 
4  of  the  organizing  committee,  a  paragraph  which  refers  to  a  table 
called  schedule  A,  dealing  with  continuous  processes.  This  striking 
out  of  schedules  A,  B,  C,  and  the  very  considerable  modifications  in 
the  text  which  result  therefrom  will  be  explained  in  the  commentary 
on  the  following  articles. 

SCHEDULES  A,  B,  C. 

Schedules  A,  B,  C,  appended  to  the  draft  convention  by  the 
organizing  committee,  consist  of  an  enumeration  of  (a)  establish¬ 
ments,  the  operation  of  which  by  their  technical  nature  is  continu¬ 


ous  and  which  require  night  and  day  work;  ( b )  the  classes  of  work 
common  to  most  industries  which  require  to  be  exempted  from  the 
limit  of  48  hours  because  the  work  must  necessarily  begin  or  end 
before  the  general  work  of  the  establishment;  and  (c)  the  industries 
which  are  liable  to  unusual  pressure  of  work  (seasonal  industries, 
industries  liable  to  sudden  demands,  industries  having  to  do  with 
perishable  goods,  industries  in  which  the  completion  of  the  piece  of 
work  can  not  be  accurately  determined  beforehand,  etc.). 

These  tables  were  appended  by  way  of  supporting  the  exceptions 
defined  in  articles  4,  5,  and  6  of  the  draft  of  the  Organizing  Com¬ 
mittee;  we  have  already  spoken  of  them  in  article  4;  we  shall  come  to 
the  others  in  our  new  article  6  on  overtime. 

It  seemed  to  the  commission  that  both  time  and  documentary 
information  were  lacking  for  a  thorough  examination  into  the  sched¬ 
ules  in  order  to  assume  responsibility  for  them;  it  appeared  also  that 
the  Organizing  Committee  had  found  itself  in  the  same  situation. 
Therefore  the  commission  decided  to  disregard  the  schedules  and  to 
seek  some  other  method,  provisionally  at  least,  of  limiting  abuses 
which  are  possible  when  a  simple  definition  of  the  causes  giving 
rise  to  exception  is  alone  relied  upon. 

The  commission  has  relied  upon  the  organizations  of  employers 
and  workers  to  conclude  agreements  regarding  the  legitimate  number 
of  hours  to  be  allowed  for  work  necessary  before  the  beginning  and 
after  the  close  of  work  in  an  establishment,  in  order  to  define  by 
industries  and  occupations,  both  the  maximum  number  of  hours 
and  the  cases  in  which  these  hours  may  be  worked,  the  agreements 
to  be  concluded  naturally  under  the  necessary  supervision  of  the 
Governments,  the  guardians  of  the  law. 

The  commission  has  taken  other  precautions,  as  will  be  seen.  It 
provided  a  special  rate  for  overtime  work  (25  per  cent  at  least  in 
addition  to  the  normal  rate);  it  has  requested  that  an  accurate  report 
be  made  each  year  by  the  International  Labor  Office — based  on 
official  reports  from  the  States — of  the  practice  followed  as  regards 
all  the  occupations  mentioned  in  schedules  A,  B,  and  C  of  the  origi¬ 
nal  report  of  the  Organizing  Committee.  The  conference  will  thus 
be  enabled  to  decide  whether  it  is  necessary  to  add  to  the  provi¬ 
sions  introduced  to-day  in  the  draft  of  the  international  convention; 
it  will  then  be  in  a  position  to  do  this  with  accuracy  without  being 
in  danger  of  bungling. 

This  prudent  method,  which  safeguards  the  future  and  facilitates 
progress,  after  long  discussions  won  the  support  of  all  the  members 
of  the  commission. 

Article  5. 

After  the  discussion  of  article  4  was  finished,  various  members  of 
the  commission  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  articles  voted 
upon  do  not  allow  the  running  of  the  railways  in  certain  countries 
to  be  conveniently  arranged,  that  agreements  previously  concluded 
provided  for  10-day  periods,  for  instance,  with  10-day  rests  and  sup¬ 
plementary  monthly  or  trimonthly  rests;  other  examples  were 
brought  forward  for  other  industries.  A  long  discussion  ensued,  as 
a  result  of  which  a  compromise  was  introduced  with  the  object  of 
permitting  all  the  States  to  accept  the  convention  in  course  of  prepa¬ 
ration.  This  compromise,  based,  as  has  just  been  explained,  upon 
a  reliance  in  the  organizations  of  the  employers  and  the  workers 
and  upon  the  supervision  of  the  International  labor  Office  (see  below, 
art.  7),  was  drawn  up  by  a  subcommittee,  as  follows: 

In  exceptional  cases  where  it  is  recognized  that  the  provisions  ol  article  2  can  not 
be  applied,  and  only  in  such  cases,  agreements  between  workers’  and  employers’ 
organizations  may  be  given  the  force  of  regulations,  if  the  Government  (to  whom  these 
agreements  shall  be  submitted)  so  decides. 

The  agreements  may  extend  the  daily  limit  of  work,  but  the  average  number  of 
hours  worked,  over  the  number  of  weeks  covered  by  an  agreement,  shall  not  exceed  48. 

Article  6. 

In  the  same  spirit  the  same  subcommittee  drew  up  a  compromise 
text  relating  to  hours  of  work  for  work  of  preparation  (art.  6,  par.  a) 
and  for  work  of  completion  (art.  6,  par.  b),  under  the  guaranties  set 


APPENDIX 


225 


forth  in  this  report  in  schedules  A,  B,  and  C.  The  text  amended 
in  a  plenary  meeting  of  the  commission  is  drawn  up  as  follows: 

Regulations  made  by  the  competent  authority  shall  determine  for  industries 

or  trades: 

(a)  Permanent  exceptions  that  may  be  allowed  in  work  of  preparation  and 
completion,  and  for  work  that  must  be  necessarily  carried  on  outside  the  limits  laid 
down  for  the  general  working  of  establishments,  or  for  certain  classes  of  workers 
whose  work  is  essentially  intermittent. 

(t>)  The  temporary  exceptions  which  may  be  allowed,  so  that  establishments  may 
deal  with  exceptional  cases  of  pressure  of  work. 

These  regulations  shall  be  made  after  consultation  with  the  employers’  and  workers’ 
organizations  interested,  if  any  exist,  which  regulations  shall  fix  the  maximum 
hours  of  overtime  in  each  instance.  But  the  rate  of  overtime  shall  not  be  less  than 
one  and  one-quarter  times  the  regular  rate. 

We  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  an  increase  of  25  per  cent  for 
overtime  work  has  already  been  provided  for  in  article  6  (a)  of  the 
organizing  committee. 

The  commission  rejected  a  motion  to  insert  in  the  agreed  minimum 
a  rate  of  time  and  a  half.  It  also  rejected  the  proposal  not  to  deter¬ 
mine  a  minimum  rate  and  to  give  absolute  freedom  to  the  agreements 
between  employers’  and  workers’  organizations.  Article  6  worded 
thus  takes  the  place  of  articles  5  and  6  of  the  draft  of  the  organizing 
committee. 

Article  7. 

The  reasons  which  led  the  commission  to  draw  up  article  7  have 
been  explained  in  connection  with  the  three  preceding  articles 
(4,  5,  and  6).  The  new  version  of  article  7,  which  takes  the  place 
of  article  7  in  the  draft  of  the  Organizing  Committee,  is  worded  as 
follows: 

Each  Government  shall  send  to  the  International  Labor  Office — 

(а)  A  list  of  the  processes  which  are  classed  as  being  continuous  in  character.  (See 

art.  4.) 

(б)  Information  as  to  the  carrying  out  of  agreements  mentioned  in  article  5. 

(c)  Also  information  respecting  hours  of  overtime,  as  per  article  6. 

The  International  Office  shall  make  an  annual  report  thereon  to  the  International 
Labor  Conference. 

This  article  7,  which  is  governed  by  the  same  motive  as  article 
7  of  the  organizing  committee,  is,  however,  more  general  in  scope. 

Article  8. 

Article  8  (a),  which  establishes  the  rules  according  to  which  the 
working  hours  are  fixed,  notified,  and  posted,  was  amended  and 
adopted,  so  that  for  the  words  “by  means  of  a  notice  posted  in  the 
works  or  other  suitable  place,  ”  there  was  substituted  the  more  exact 
wording  “by  means  of  the  posting  of  notices  in  conspicuous  places 
in  the  works  or  other  suitable  places.  ” 

The  greater  part  of  the  changes  in  the  schedule  of  hours  thus  pro¬ 
vided  for  are  of  slight  importance,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
methods  and  forms  of  notifications  which  are  to  be  given  to  the 
inspectors  are  within  the  competence  of  the  Governments  which  are 
responsible  for  the  application  of  the  law;  it  is  for  this  reason  that 
it  did  not  seem  possible  to  say  that  the  hours,  once  fixed,  could  not 
be  changed  after  agreement  between  organizations  of  employers  and 
workers.  While  these  agreements  are  desirable  in  order  to  provide 
general  rules,  the  stipulation  has  been  found  to  be  too  rigid  to  be  in¬ 
serted  into  the  text  without  serious  inconvenience. 

Finally,  the  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  possible  to 
impose  upon  the  different  States  the  forms  approved  by  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Office.  It  is  true  that  the  conference  could,  in  case 
of  necessity,  propose  such  forms  through  an  international  conven¬ 
tion,  but  it  is  without  the  province  of  the  International  Labor  Office 
to  impose  regulations  upon  the  States  on  its  own  authority.  It  was 
understood,  however,  that  the  International  Labor  Office  should 
elaborate  with  the  least  possible  delay  such  forms,  which  if  adopted 
would  make  comparisons  possible  and  effective,  and  should  transmit 
them  to  the  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  and  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Organization. 


Article  9. 

In  the  case  of  a  country  where  climatic  conditions,  the  incomplete 
development  of  industrial  organization,  or  other  special  conditions 
materially  modify  the  efficiency  of  labor,  a  study  will  be  made  by  a 
special  commission.  The  general  eight-hour  commission  did  not 
deal  with  that  matter. 

Referring  to  the  cases  of  Greece,  Rouinania,  and  Cuba,  the  memo¬ 
randa  of  these  countries  have  been  turned  over  to  the  special  com¬ 
missions  dealing  with  those  States. 

Article  10. 

in  response  to  the  questions  relative  to  the  event  of  war,  or  other 
emergency  endangering  the  national  safety,  a  member  of  the  Organiz¬ 
ing  Committee  stated  that  the  words  “in  event  of  war”  did  not  seem 
to  be  sufficient.  He  cited  the  case  of  “danger  of  war,”  as  provided 
in  the  laws  of  certain  countries,  which  might  bring  about  serious 
consequences.  The  meaning  of  the  article  is  made  more  clear  by  the 
fact  that  the  commission  has  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  substitute 
“public  security”  for  “national  security,”  nor  to  add  the  words 
“or  to  insure  the  carrying  on  of  the  public  service.” 

Article  11. 

In  conformity  with  the  English  text  of  the  report  of  the  organizing 
committee,  the  majority  of  the  commission  propose  July  1,  1921,  as 
the  date  on  which  the  convention  shall  be  put  into  force.  An  earlier 
date  did  not  seem  possible,  as  we  are  now  at  the  end  of  1919,  and  the 
treaty  of  peace  provides  (art.  405)  that  the  waiting  period  allowed 
to  Governments  for  submitting  the  draft  convention  to  the  compe¬ 
tent  authorities  may  be  as  long  as  18  months,  counting  from  the 
closing  day  of  the  conference. 

In  continuation  of  article  11,  an  amendment  to  the  draft  of  the 
Organizing  Committee  provided  for  special  delays  for  the  devastated 
regions. 

In  view  of  the  agreements  reached  in  new  articles  5  and  6,  and  of 
the  time  still  to  elapse  before  the  convention  goes  into  effect,  the 
amendment  was  withdrawn,  with  the  consent  of  the  representatives 
of  the  employers’  organizations  of  France  and  Belgium.  But  the  com¬ 
mission  considered  it  to  be  its  duty  to  manifest  its  feelings  touching 
the  devastations  of  which  these  two  countries,  and  numerous  others, 
have  been  the  victims,  by  voting  unanimously  the  following  resolu¬ 
tion,  presented  by  the  Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes: 

The  commission  views  with  sympathetic  concern  the  distress  of  the  peoples 
of  the  devastated  countries,  consequent  upon  the  destruction  of  homes  and  property 
in  the  devastated  areas;  it  records  its  desire  that  reconstruction  of  those  devastated 
areas  should  he  expedited,  and  it  affirms  that  the  Governments  and  organizations 
which  may  carry  out  the  convention  limiting  the  hours  of  work  may  properly 
regard  work  of  reconstruction  as  justifying  special  consideration. 

***** 

An  amendment  making  the  ratification  of  the  present  convention 
dependent  on  its  acceptance  by  a  certain  number  of  countries  was 
considered.  The  commission  recognized  that  the  governments  or 
constitutional  authorities  who  will  be  responsible  for  the  adoption 
or  rejection  of  the  convention  are  the  only  qualified  -bodies  com¬ 
petent  to  discuss  a  matter  of  this  description.  Consequently  the 
amendment  was  withdrawn. 

A  final  resolution  received  the  attention  of  the  commission.  It 
was  presented  by  the  president  of  the  commission  and  is  worded  as 
follows: 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  not  interfere  with  any  better  conditions 
already  in  operation,  or  agreed  upon,  for  all  or  part  of  the  workers  of  any  country. 

Neither  shall  they  interfere  with  any  negotiations  now  proceeding  in  which  the 
workers  are  asking  for  better  conditions  than  the  convention  provides. 

Many  members  having  expressed  the  opinion  that  this  principle 
was  one  of  common  law  which  could  be  applied  to  all  our  conven¬ 
tion  drafts  which  stipulate  only  the  minimum  advantages  and  that 
the  principle  is  mentioned  expressly  in  article  405  of  the  treaty  of 


146865°— 20 - 15 


226 


APPENDIX 


peace  (last  paragraph  of  art.  19  of  our  by-laws),  the  commission 
approved  the  motion  and  ordered  it  inserted  in  this  report. 

The  draft  convention  which  we  submit  to  the  International  Labor 
Conference  is  as  follows: 

DRAFT  OF  A  CONVENTION  TO  LIMIT  THE  HOURS  OF  WORK  IN 

INDUSTRIAL  UNDERTAKINGS  TO  8  HOURS  IN  THE  DAY  AND  48 

IN  THE  WEEK. 

Article  1. 

The  present  convention  applies  to  all  industrial  undertakings, 
public  or  private,  and  to  all  branches  thereof  of  whatsoever  kind, 
other  than  undertakings  in  which  only  the  members  of  the  family 
are  employed. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  following: 

(а)  Mines  and  quarries  and  any  other  works  for  the  extraction  of 
minerals. 

(б)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  re¬ 
paired,  ornamented,  finished,  or  auapted  for  sale,  or  broken  up  or 
demolished,  or  materials  are  transformed  (including  the  generation, 
transmission,  and  transformation  of  motive  power,  electric,  hydraulic, 
etc.,  shipbuilding  establishments  concerned  with  the  demolition 
of  material,  laundry  work,  etc.). 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  and  the  prepara¬ 
tion  for  and  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  building. 

(d)  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  sea  or 
inland  waterways,  including  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays, 
wharves,  and  at  warehouses,  but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 
The  provisions  relative  to  transport  by  sea  shall  be  determined  by 
a  special  conference  dealing  with  maritime  employment. 

The  competent  authority  in  each  country  shall  define  the  line  of 
demarcation  which  separates  industry  on  the  one  side  and  com¬ 
merce  and  agriculture  on  the  other. 

Article  2. 

The  working  hours  of  employed  persons  shall  not  exceed  8  hours 
in  the  day,  and  48  in  the  week,  with  the  exception  hereinafter 
provided. 

(a)  The  provisions  of  the  convention  shall  not  apply  to  persons 
holding  positions  of  supervision  or  management,  or  employed  in  a 
confidential  capacity. 

(b)  Where  by  law,  custom,  or  agreement  between  employers’  and 
workers’  organizations  (or  where  no  such  organizations  exist, 
between  the  employers’  and  workers’  representatives),  the  hours 
of  work  on  one  or  more  days  of  the  week  are  less  than  eight,  the  limit 
of  eight  hours  may  be  exceeded  on  the  remaining  days  of  the  week 
by  the  sanction  of  the)  competent  authority,  or  by  agreement 
between  such  organizations  or  representatives.  Provided,  how¬ 
ever,  that  in  no  case  shall  the  daily  limit  of  eight  hours  under  the 
provisions  of  this  paragraph  be  exceeded  by  more  than  one  hour. 

(c)  Where  persons  are  employed  in  shifts,  it  shall  be  permissible 
to  employ  persons  in  excess  of  8  hours  in  any  one  day  and  48  in 
any  one  week,  if  the  average  number  of  hours  over  a  period  of  three 
weeks  or  less  does  not  exceed  8  hours  per  day,  and  48  per  week. 

Article  3. 

The  limit  of  hours  of  work  prescribed  in  article  2  may  be  ex¬ 
ceeded  in  case  of  accident,  actual  or  threatened,  and  in  case  of 
urgent  work  to  be  done  to  machinery  or  plant,  or  of  “force  majeure,” 
but  so  far  only  as  may  be  necessary  to  avoid  serious  interference 
with  the  ordinary  working  of  the  undertaking. 

Article  4. 

The  limit  of  hours  of  work  prescribed  in  article  2  may  also  be 
exceeded  in  those  processes  which  are  required  by  reason  of  the 


nature  of  the  process  to  be  carried  on  continuously  by  a  succession 
of  shifts,  subject  to  the  condition  that  the  working  hours  shall  not 
exceed  56  in  the  week  on  the  average.  The  limitation  of  the  hours 
of  work  shall  not  affect  any  holidays  which  may  be  secured  to  the 
workers  in  such  industries  by  the  national  law  in  compensation  for 
the  weekly  rest  day. 

Article  5. 

In  exceptional  cases  where  it  is  recognized  that  the  provisions 
of  article  2  can  not  be  applied,  and  only  in  such  cases,  agreements 
between  workers’  and  employers’  organizations  may  be  given  force 
of  regulations,  if  the  Government  (to  whom  these  agreements 
shall  be  submitted)  so  decides. 

The  agreements  may  extend  the  daily  limit  of  work,  but  the 
average  number  of  hours  worked,  over  the  number  of  weeks  covered 
by  an  arrangement,  shall  not  exceed  48. 

Article  6. 

Regulations  made  by  the  competent  authority  shall  determine 
for  industries  or  trades — 

(a)  Permanent  exceptions  that  may  be  allowed  in  work  of  prepa¬ 
ration  and  completion,  and  for  work  that  must  necessarily  be  carried 
on  outside  the  limits  laid  down  for  the  general  working  of  estab¬ 
lishments,  or  for  certain  classes  of  workers  whose  work  is  essentially 
intermittent. 

(b)  The  temporary  exceptions  which  may  be  allowed,  so  that 
establishments  may  deal  with  exceptional  cases  of  pressure  of  work. 

These  regulations  shall  be  made  after  consultation  with  the  em¬ 
ployers’  and  workers’  organizations  interested,  if  any  exist,  which 
regulations  shall  fix  the  maximum  hours  of  overtime  in  each  instance. 
But  the  rate  of  overtime  shall  not  be  less  than  one  and  one-quarter 
times  the  regular  rate. 

Article  7. 

Each  Government  shall  send  to  the  International  Bureau  of 
Labor — 

(а)  A  list  of  the  processes  which  are  classed  as  being  continuous 
in  character.  (See  art.  4.) 

(б)  Any  information  as  to  the  carrying  out  of  agreements  men¬ 
tioned  in  article  5. 

(c)  Information  concerning  the  hours  of  overtime,  as  per  article  6. 

The  International  Labor  Office  shall  make  an  annual  report 

thereon  to  the  International  Labor  Conference. 

Article  8. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this 
convention,  every  employer  shall  be  required — 

(a)  To  notify  by  means  of  the  posting  of  notices  in  conspicuous 
places  in  the  works  or  other  suitable  place,  or  by  such  other  method 
as  may  be  approved  by  the  Government,  the  times  at  which  the 
employment  of  his  workers  commences  and  ends,  or  where  work  is 
carried  on  by  shifts,  the  times  at  which  the  employment  of  each 
shift  commences  and  ends.  The  times  shall  be  so  fixed  as  not  to 
exceed  the  limits  provided  for  under  this  convention,  and  when 
notified  shall  not  be  changed  except  with  such  notice  and  in  such 
manner  as  may  be  approved  by  the  Government. 

(b)  To  notify  in  the  same  way  such  rest  times  observed  during  the 
period  of  work  as  are  not  reckoned  as  part  of  the  working  hours. 

(c)  To  keep  a  record  in  the  form  prescribed  by  the  national  law  or 
order  of  the  executive  Government  of  all  additional  hours  worked  in 
pursuance  of  articles  3  and  6  of  this  convention. 

It  shall  be  made  an  offense  against  the  law  to  employ  any  person 
outside  the  times  fixed  in  pursuance  of  paragraph  (a)  or  during  the 
times  fixed  in  pursuance  of  paragraph  (b). 

Article  9. 


APPENDIX 


227 


Article  10. 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  may  be  suspended  in  any 
country  by  order  of  the  Government,  in  the  event  of  war  or  other 
emergency  endangering  the  national  safety. 

Article  11. 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into  force 
not  later  than  July  1,  1921. 

(Signed)  Arthur  Fontaine, 

Reporter  for  the  Commission. 


Appendix  A. 

DRAFT  CONVENTION  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE. 

1.  The  present  convention  applies  to  all  industrial  undertakings 
other  than  undertakings  in  which  only  the  members  of  the  family 
are  employed. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  following: 

(а)  Mines  and  quarries. 

(h)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  re¬ 
paired,  ornamented,  finished  or  adapted  for  sale,  or  materials  are 
transformed  (including  the  generation  and  transformation  of  elec¬ 
tricity,  shipbuilding,  laundry  work). 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  and  the  prepara¬ 
tion  for  and  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  building. 

( d )  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  including 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  at  warehouses, 
but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  national  law  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which  separates 
industry  on  the  one  side  and  commerce  and  agriculture  on  the  other. 

2.  The  working  hours  of  employed  persons  shall  not  exceed  48  in 
the  week,  with  the  exception  hereinafter  provided;  but  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  this  convention  shall  not  apply  to  persons  holding  positions 
of  supervision  or  management  or  employed  in  a  confidential  capacity 
who  are  not  usually  employed  in  manual  labor.  Where  persons  are 
employed  in  shifts,  it  shall  be  permissible  to  employ  persons  in 
excess  of  48  hours  in  any  week  if  the  average  number  of  working 
hours  over  a  period  of  one  month  or  less  does  not  exceed  48. 

3.  The  limit  of  48  hours  may  be  exceeded  in  case  of  accident, 
breakdown  of  machinery  or  plant,  or  other  emergency,  but  so  far 
only  as  may  be  necessary  to  avoid  serious  interference  with  the 
ordinary  working  of  the  undertaking. 

4.  The  limit  of  48  hours  may  be  exceeded  in  those  industries  or 
processes  which  are  required  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  industry 
or  process  to  be  carried  on  continuously  by  a  succession  of  shifts, 
subject  to  the  condition  that  the  working  hours  shall  not  exceed  56 
in  the  week  on  the  average.  The  limitation  of  the  hours  of  work 
shall  not  affect  any  holidays  which  may  be  secured  to  the  workers 
in  such  industries  by  the  national  law  in  compensation  for  the 
weekly  rest  day. 

The  industries  included  in  schedule  A  shall  be  regarded  as  indus¬ 
tries  to  which  this  article  applies. 

5.  The  limit  of  48  hours  may  be  extended  to  60  in  the  case  of  any 
of  the  classes  of  workers  included  in  schedule  B. 

6.  (a)  In  industries  in  which  the  conditions  specified  in  schedule 
C  exist,  overtime  for  not  more  than  150  hours  in  the  year  may  be 
worked,  subject  to  the  condition  that  a  worker  when  employed  over¬ 
time  shall  receive  a  rate  of  pay  which  shall  be  higher  by  at  least  25 
per  cent  than  his  normal  rate  of  pay. 

(б)  In  other  industries  overtime  for  not  more  than  150  hours  in 
the  year  during  the  next  five  years  and  afterwards  for  not  more  than 
100  hours  may  be  worked  subject  to  the  same  conditions  as  in  (a). 


7.  If  any  of  the  contracting  States  claims  that  any  industry 
other  than  those  specified  in  schedules  A,  B,  or  C  carried  on  in  its 
territory  comes  within  any  of  the  foregoing  articles,  it  shall  notify 
the  same  to  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 

8.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this 
convention,  every  employer  shall  be  required — • 

(а)  To  notify  by  means  of  a  notice  posted  in  the  works  or  other 
suitable  place,  or  by  such  other  method  as  may  be  approved  by  the 
Government,  the  times  at  which  the  employment  of  his  workers 
commences  and  ends,  or  where  work  is  carried  on  by  shifts,  the  times 
at  which  the  employment  of  each  shift  commences  and  ends.  The 
times  shall  be  so  fixed  as  not  to  exceed  the  limits  provided  for  under 
this  convention,  and  when  notified  shall  not  be  changed  except 
with  such  notice  and  in  such  manner  as  may  be  approved  by  the 
Government. 

(б)  To  notify  in  the  same  way  such  rest  times  observed  during 
the  period  of  work  as  are  not  reckoned  as  part  of  the  working  hours. 

(c)  To  keep  a  record  in  the  form  prescribed  by  the  national  law 
or  order  of  the  executive  Government  of  all  additional  hours  worked 
in  pursuance  of  articles  3  and  6  of  this  convention. 

It  shall  be  made  an  offense  against  the  law  to  employ  any  person 
outside  the  times  fixed  in  pursuance  of  paragraph  (a)  or  during  the 
times  fixed  in  pursuance  of  paragraph  (6). 

9.1  In  those  countries  in  which  climatic  conditions,  the  imperfect 
development  of  industrial  organization  or  other  special  circum¬ 
stances  render  the  industrial  efficiency  of  the  workers  substantially 
different,  the  following  modifications  of  the  provisions  of  this  con¬ 
vention  may  take  effect: 


10.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  may  be  suspended  in  any 
country,  by  order  of  the  Government,  in  the  event  of  war  or  other 
emergency  endangering  the  national  safety. 

11.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into  force 
not  later  than  July  1,  1921. 

Schedule  a. 

i.  ( a )  Industries  in  which  work  is  necessarily  carried  on  by  all  or  the  great  major¬ 
ity  of  the  workers  night  and  day  for  seven  days  a  week: 

(i)  The  extraction  of  metal  from  the  ore,  or  the  recovery  of  metal  by  blast  furnaces 
or  other  processes,  including  blast  furnaces,  reverberatory  furnaces,  retorts,  electric 
furnaces,  electrolytic  process  and  the  preliminary  process  of  calcining  ores. 

(ii)  The  manufacture  of  coke  and  recovery  of  coal  by-products  from  coal. 

(iil)  The  production  and  refining  of  mineral  oil,  including  oil  from  shale. 

(iv)  Public  utility  services  (gas,  electricity,  water). 

(6)  Branches  of  industry  in  which  work  is  necessarily  carried  on  night  and  day  for 
seven  days  a  week,  but  which  constitute  a  portion  only,  and  generally  a  small  portion 
of  the  work  of  the  establishments  in  which  they  are  carried  on  : 

(i)  Continuous  processes  m  the  manufacture  of  chemicals,  including  synthetic  dyes. 

(ii)  Sugar  refining  (char-house). 

(iii)  Manufacture  of  condensed  milk  (receiving  department  and  vacuum  pan,  pas¬ 
teurizing  and  cooling  departments). 

(iv)  Cement  manufacture  (Schneider  kiln  and  rotary  kiln  processes). 

(v)  Steel  manufacture  (smelting  department). 

(vi)  Works  of  construction  (tunneling  by  compressed  air,  work  of  pump  and  en¬ 
gine  attendants). 

(vii)  Salt  works  (work  of  lump  men  and  wallers). 

(viii)  Glass  manufacture  (founders,  teasers,  casters,  drawers,  Lehr  kiln  men  and 
cave  men  in  sheet  and  plate  works). 

(ix)  Mines  (minding  of  pumps,  fans,  furnaces,  winding). 

(x)  . 

(xi)  . 

II.  Industries  in  which  work,  though  not  carried  on  day  and  night,  is  necessarily 

carried  on  seven  days  a  week,  e.  g.,  manufacture  of  milk  products,  other  than  con¬ 
densed  milk. 

Schedule  B. 

Classes  of  work  common  to  most  industries  which  require  to  be  exempted  from  the 
limit  of  48  hours  because  of  the  special  conditions  of  the  employment: 

(i)  Persons  who  have  to  come  in  before  the  normal  hour  for  beginning  work,  or  to 
remain  after  the  day’s  work  is  over,  e.  g.,  boiler  attendants,  enginemen,  electricians, 
oilers  and  greasers,  cleaners,  timekeepers,  and  checkers. 

1  It  will  be  necessary  in  accordance  with  article  405  of  the  treaty  to  consider  the 
modifications  necessary  in  the  case  of  special  countries,  but  as  the  replies  of  Japan, 
China,  India,  and  other  countries  had  not  been  received  when  this  report  was  drafted, 
the  commission  has  not  yet  been  able  to  make  any  recommendations  in  regard  to 
them. 


228 


APPENDIX 


(ii)  Persons  who  have  to  come  in  early  to  prepare  material,  e.  g.,  sponge  makers 
In  baling  trade,  molders,  laborers  in  founderies. 

(iii)  Works  maintenance  staff,  whose  duty  is  to  carry  out  repairs. 

(iv)  Laboratory  chemists  and  persons  engaged  in  research  work  and  testing  work. 

(v)  Furnace  men  (including  glass  tank  men  and  teasers),  retort  men,  men  employed 
on  works  gas  plants. 

(vi)  Annealers  engaged  on  continuous  work  (i.  e.,  on  work  where  the  annealing 
takes  several  days  to  perform),  and  kiln  men,  oven  men,  and  stove  men 

(vii)  Day  and  night  watchmen,  caretakers,  pointsmen  on  works  railways. 

(via) . . 

(ix) . 

Schedule  C. 

(i)  Industries  liable  to  press  of  work  at  certain  recurring  seasons  of  the  year,  e.  g., 
aerated  water  making,  beer  bottling,  printing  and  bookbinding,  preparation  of  food 
malting,  manufacture  of  ice,  seed  cleaning  and  grading,  making  and  repairing  of 
agricultural  implements  or  machinery,  manufacture  of  artificial  manure. 

(ii)  Industries  liable  to  sudden  press  of  orders  arising  from  unforeseen  events,  e.  g., 
making  up  of  wearing  apparel,  job  dyeing  and  dry  cleaning,  biscuit  making,  ware¬ 
houses  in  which  goods  are  made  up  for  shipping  orders,  packing-case  making  for 
shipping  orders,  farriers,  ship  repairing,  dock  laboring. 

(iii)  Industries  in  which  the  article  manufactured  or  material  used  is  of  a  perishable 
nature,  e.  g.,  fish  curing,  preserving  of  fruit,  preserving  of  meat,  manufacture  of  con¬ 
densed  milk,  extraction  of  whale  oil,  manufacture  of  glue  and  gelatine. 

(iv)  Industries  in  which  the  time  for  the  completion  of  the  work  or  process  can  not 
by  reason  of  the  nature  thereof  be  accurately  prescribed, e.g., bleaching  and  dyeing, 
textile  printing,  metal  rolling  mills  and  foundries,  lead  pipe  making,  copper  refining, 
wire  drawing,  paper  mills,  baking  of  bread  or  biscuits,  tanneries,  starch  and  corn  flour 
works,  vulcanizing  of  rubber,  sheathing  or  covering  of  electric  cables. 

( v)  Factories  driven  by  water  power  only,  which  are  liable  to  be  stopped  by  drought 
or  flood. 

(vi)  . 

(vii)  . 


RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE.! 

The  organizing  committee  submit  as  a  basis  for  the  discussion  of 
the  subject  by  the  conference  the  draft  of  a  convention  which  is 
annexed  to  this  chapter. 

The  draft  embodies  the  principle  of  the  48-hours  week.  The 
committee  suggest  the  adoption  of  this  principle,  rather  than  the 
principle  of  the  8-hours  day,  for  two  reasons.  First,  it  allows  more 
elasticity  in  the  arrangement  of  the  hours  of  work,  and  it  facilitates 
the  adoption  of  a  half  holiday,  or  even  a  whole  holiday,  on  Saturday 
or  some  other  day  of  the  week  by  enabling  a  longer  period  than  8 
hours  to  be  worked  on  other  days.  Secondly,  it  helps  to  secure  the 
weekly  rest  day,  whereas  the  principle  of  an  8-hours  day  by  itself 
does  not. 

It  is  clear  that,  whichever  principle  is  adopted,  some  modifications 
will  be  necessary,  at  any  rate  for  the  present,  in  certain  industries 
or  branches  of  industry  or  classes  of  work.  The  committee  have 
given  very  careful  consideration  to  this  question.  It  is  of  great 
importance,  if  uniformity  of  conditions  is  to  be  secured  between 
different  States,  that  the  limits  within  which  these  modifications 
may  be  granted  should  be  laid  down  in  any  convention  that  may  be 
adopted.  The  mere  affirmation  of  the  principle  of  a  48-hours  week, 
while  leaving  a  wide  discretion  to  each  State  to  allow  such  excep¬ 
tions  as  it  considers  desirable  in  the  circumstances  of  its  country, 
would  not,  so  it  seems  to  the  committee,  fulfill  the  purpose  for  which 
the  International  Labor  Organization  has  been  created.  It  must 
be  recognized,  however,  that  the  consideration  of  the  question  is 
hardly  yet  sufficiently  advanced  in  the  different  industrial  coun¬ 
tries  to  enable  the  cases  in  which,  and  the  limits  within  which,  modi¬ 
fications  should  be  allowed  to  be  laid  down  in  exact  detail.  The 
committee  have  only  found  it  possible  to  suggest  in  general  terms 
the  conditions  which  appear  to  justify  an  exception  being  made  to 
the  principle  of  the  48-hours  week,  and  the  general  limits  within 

>  Report  on  the  8-hours  day  and  the  48-hour  week  prepared  by  the  organizing 
committee  for  the  International  Labor  Conlerence,  Washington,  1919-London,  pp. 
136-141. 


which  the  variations  from  the  principle  might  reasonably  be  con¬ 
fined.  As  experience  is  obtained  by  the  different  States  of  the 
working  of  the  provisions,  it  is  hoped  that  it  may  be  possible  at  a 
subsequent  conference  to  make  the  provisions  more  precise,  and  they 
recommend  that  the  conference  should  instruct  the  International 
Labor  Office  to  pursue  the  inquiries  into  the  subject  and  report  in 
due  course  to  the  conference. 

The  most  important  case  to  be  considered  by  the  conference  is 
that  of  the  continuous  industries — that  is,  industries  which  by  reason 
of  the  nature  of  the  work  require  to  be  carried  on  continuously  for 
seven  days  in  the  week.  It  is  customary  in  these  industries  to  carry 
on  the  work  by  a  succession  of  shifts  working  seven  days  a  week. 
A  typical  case  is  that  of  the  blast  furnaces  in  the  iron-smelting  indus¬ 
try.  It  seems  clear  that  at  present  there  would  be  great  difficulties 
in  limiting  the  hours  in  this  industry  to  48  in  the  week  by  interna¬ 
tional  regulation,  and  that  an  extension  of  hours  must  be  allowed. 
A  reorganization  of  the  industry,  by  the  adoption  of  a  system  of  relief 
shifts  or  some  other  measure,  would  be  necessary  to  enable  the  work 
of  each  individual  worker  to  be  limited  to  six  days  in  the  week. 
Such  a  reorganization  has  already  taken  place  in  some  cases:  for 
example,  in  the  supply  of  electricity  and  gasin  certain  English  towns; 
but  the  shortage  of  trained  hands  and  other  difficulties  will  have  to 
be  surmounted  before  its  general  adoption  is  possible.  The  com¬ 
mittee,  however,  think  that  the  question  is  one  which  urgently 
requires  solution  in  order  that  the  benefit  of  periodical  rest  days — 
which  is  one  of  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  treaty  of  peace — may 
be  secured  to  the  workers  in  these  industries;  in  some  cases  such 
workers  have  already  secured  a  minimum  number  of  holidays  during 
the  course  of  the  year,  and  it  is  understood,  of  course,  that  these  will 
not  be  affected  by  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  weekly  hours  now 
proposed.  They  have  considered  whether  it  would  be  possible  to 
recommend  that  the  length  of  shift  in  the  continuous  industries 
should  be  limited  to  eight  hours.  They  understand,  however,  that 
in  some  instances  the  length  of  the  shift  is  graduated  according  to 
the  intensity  of  the  work — e.  g.,  in  the  case  of  work  at  the  wind¬ 
ing  engines  in  mines,  the  shift  is  shortened  during  the  busy  part  of 
the  day,  when  winding  is  going  on  continuously,  and  lengthened 
during  the  night,  when  the  work  is  much  less  heavy.  It  is  also 
common  where  men  change  periodically  from  one  shift  to  another,  so 
as  to  take  in  turn  duty  during  the  day  and  during  the  night,  for  the 
change  over  to  be  effected  by  one  of  the  shifts  being  dropped  and 
the  other  shift  or  shifts  being  correspondingly  lengthened.  The 
committee  therefore  recommend  for  these  industries  a  provision  that 
on  an  average  over  one  month  or  less  the  hours  of  work  shall  not 
exceed  56  in  the  week. 

Another  important  case  for  consideration  is  that  of  the  workers, 
such  as  caretakers,  repairing  staff,  boiler  attendants,  etc.,  whose 
duties  require  them  to  attend  before  and  after  the  ordinary  working 
hours  or  whose  duties  are  of  an  intermittent  or  exceptionally  light 
kind.  A  list  of  such  cases  is  given  in  Schedule  B  to  the  draft  con¬ 
vention,  which  has  been  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  the  information 
supplied  to  the  committee.  The  list  may  not  be  exhaustive  and 
further  information  will  no  doubt  be  forthcoming  at  the  conference. 
The  wages  of  such  men  are  usually  calculated  with  reference  to  the 
exceptional  nature  of  their  duties.  It  is  important,  however,  that 
some  limit  to  the  number  of  hours  they  may  be  employed  should  be 
laid  down,  and  the  committee  suggest  not  more  than  60  in  the  week. 

The  last,  and  most  important,  question  under  this  head  is  that  of 
overtime.  The  cases  in  which  overtime  is  worked  at  the  present 
time  fall  mainly  into  two  classes: 

(a)  Cases  in  which  overtime  is  made  necessary  by  the  special  conditions 
of  the  industry. — These  are  summarized  in  Schedule  C  to  the  draft 
convention.  The  most  noteworthy  cases  in  this  class  are  those  where 
the  conditions  are  governed  by  the  weather  or  the  materials  handled 
are  of  a  perishable  nature,  and  those  where  unforeseen  pressure  of 
work  is  liable  to  arise  from  time  to  time.  In  cases  falling  under  this 
class  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  meet  the  temporary 


APPENDIX 


229 


need  by  temporary  additions  to  the  staff,  nor  could  a  system  which 
depended  on  a  supply  of  casual  labor  be  generally  recommended. 
To  some  extent  it  may  be  found  possible  in  the  future  by  reorganiza¬ 
tion  of  work,  careful  arrangement  and  planning  in  advance,  and 
standardization  of  products  to  meet  the  needs  in  those  classes  of  in¬ 
dustry  which  are  subject  to  unforeseen  and  irregular  pressure  of 
orders  without  resort  to  overtime;  but  in  others,  especially  those 
which  are  liable  to  be  affected  by  the  weather  or  the  seasons,  the 
need  for  occasional  overtime  will  probably  always  remain.  It  is 
suggested  by  the  committee  that  the  number  of  hours  overtime  in 
the  year  should  be  limited  in  the  case  of  these  industries  to  150,  and 
that  payment  at  an  increased  rate,  say  25  per  cent  at  least  above 
normal  rates,  should  be  made  compulsory  for  all  overtime. 

( b )  Cases  in  which  overtime  is  worked  to  expedite  or  increase  produc¬ 
tion,  or  to  meet  pressure  of  orders,  but  where  the  pressure  is  not  due  to 
anything  special  in  the  nature  of  the  business  itself. — The  need  may 
arise  from  the  fact  that  the  employer  has  undertaken  more  work 
than  his  works  can  get  through  in  the  normal  working  hours,  and  it 
may  happen  that  overtime  in  one  factory,  and  short  time  in  another, 
occur  simultaneously.  Some  check  is  placed  upon  the  working  of 
this  kind  of  overtime  by  the  demand  which  labor  makes  to-day 
that  the  additional  hours  shall  be  paid  for  at  higher  rates  of  wages; 
but  notwithstanding  this,  a  large  amount  of  such  overtime  is  un¬ 
doubtedly  worked.  The  decision  of  the  conference  as  to  the  pro¬ 
posal  they  shall  put  forward  in  regard  to  this  class  of  overtime  is 
perhaps  the  most  imp  irtant  the  conference  has  to  make.  It  may 
be  urged  on  the  one  hand  with  force  that,  in  the  circumstances  of  the 
present  time,  when  the  greatest  possible  production  is  needed 
to  make  good  the  losses  caused  in  almost  every  country  by  the  war, 
no  check  should  be  placed  on  the  amount  of  overtime  that  may  be 
worked,  at  any  rate  in  industries  producing  essential  articles.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  evident  that  unless  the  power  to  work  overtime 
is  strictly  controlled  by  the  provisions  of  the  convention,  uniformity 
of  working  hours  between  the  different  industrial  countries  and  the 
security  for  the  leisure  of  the  workers,  which  it  is  the  main  object 
of  the  convention  to  secure,  will  not  be  attained,  and  the  principle 
of  the  48- hours  week  will  to  a  great  extent  be  rendered  nugatory. 
It  must  also  be  remembered  that  both  actual  experience  and  the 
researches  which  have  been  made  into  the  question  of  fatigue  show 
that  overtime  is  not  an  economical  means  of  increasing  production; 
that  though  in  times  of  great  emergency,  such  as  the  late  war,  when 
a  large  increase  of  output  is  needed  for  a  short  period,  the  use  of  over¬ 
time  is  justified,  in  the  long  run  the  efficiency  of  the  worker  is 
affected  and  the  general  rate  of  production  is  lowered.  The  com¬ 
mittee  therefore  venture  to  suggest  that  power  to  work  overtime 
should  be  limited  to  industries  in  Schedule  C.  If,  however,  the 
conference  think  it  necessary  to  decide  that,  in  present  circum¬ 
stances  at  any  rate,  the  power  to  work  overtime  in  other  cases  can 
not  be  entirely  taken  away,  the  committee  recommend  for  the 
consideration  of  the  conference  that  the  following  limits  and  con¬ 
ditions  should  be  imposed: 

(i)  That  the  number  of  hours  overtime  in  the  year  should  be 
definitely  limited,  say  to  150  hours  a  year  for  the  next  five  years 
and  afterwards  to  100  hours. 

(ii)  That  payment  at  an  increased  rate,  say  25  per  cent  at  least 
above  normal  rates  should  be  made  compulsory  for  all  overtime. 

The  administrative  arrangements  to  be  adopted  in  each  country 
for  enforcing  the  observance  of  the  provisions  of  the  convention 
when  embodied  in  the  national  law  will  necessarily  vary  with  the 
organization  of  the  national  administration,  but  there  are  certain 
rules  which  appear  to  the  committee  to  be  essential  in  order  to 
secure  an  effective  supervision  over  the  observance  of  the  law. 
These  are  indicated  in  article  8  of  .the  draft.  The  chief  of  these 
is  that  the  working  times  in  each  establishment  shall  be  fixed  and 
notified  beforehand,  and  that  it  shall  be  made  an  offense  against  the 
law  to  employ  anyone  outside  the  time  so  fixed.  Unless  this  is  done, 
it  is  almost  impossible  for  the  Government  inspectors  to  check  the 


number  of  hours  which  are  being  worked  in  the  establishment. 
Different  times,  of  course,  may  be  fixed  for  different  branches  of 
work  or  sets  of  men,  though  conditions  will  probably  need  to  be 
imposed  to  prevent  evasion  of  the  law  by  the  transference  of  men 
from  one  set  to  another  and  in  other  ways.  The  committee  have 
not  thought  it  necessary  to  make  any  suggestion  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  times  should  be  fixed.  In  some  cases  it  may  be  found 
necessary  for  the  State  to  fix  the  times,  or  alternative  times  between 
which  a  choice  may  be  made  by  the  employer  (as  in  the  existing 
British  Factory  Act);  in  others,  they  will  be  fixed  by  agreement 
between  the  organized  employers  and  workers  or  the  individual 
employer  and  his  employees;  in  others  again,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  leave  a  discretion  to  the  employer. 

The  committee  have  not  been  able,  on  the  information  before 
them,  to  consider  exhaustively  the  question  of  the  date  when  the 
convention  should  be  brought  into  operation  and  the  question 
whether  it  may  be  necessary  to  allow  delays  in  the  case  of  certain 
countries  or  certain  industries.  This  will,  they  think,  have  to  be 
fully  examined  at  the  conference;  but  they  suggest  that,  in  view 
of  the  progress  that  has  been  made  recently  with  the  adoption  of 
the  8-hours  day  or  48-hours  week,  it  should  be  possible  to  bring  the 
convention  into  operation  generally  (subject  to  such  exceptions  as 
may  be  decided  on)  at  an  early  date,  and  they  suggest  the  1st  July, 
1921,  i.  e.,  six  months  after  the  end  of  the  period  allowed  by  the 
treaty  (article  405)  for  the  passing  of  the  necessary  legislation. 


COMMISSION  ON  SPECIAL  COUNTRIES. 

Chairman,  Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes  (Great  Britain). 

China:  Mr.  Yung  Ching  Yang  (substitute  for  Mr.  Lingoh  Wang). 
France:  Mr.  Raul  Collinet  (substitute  for  Mr.  Louis  Guerin). 

Great  Britain:  Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning, 
Mr.  G.  S.  Maginness  (substitute  for  Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks). 

India:  Mr.  L.  J.  Kershaw,  Mr.  A.  R.  Murray,  Mr.  N,  M.  Joshi. 

Italy:  Mr.  Bernardi  (substitute  for  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches), 
Dr.  M.  Sacco  (substitute  for  Mr.  G.  Baldesi). 

Japan:  Dr.  M.  Oka,  Mr.  Sanji  Muto,  Mr.  Uhei  Masumoto 
Netherlands:  Mr.  Jan  Oudegeest. 

Persia:  Mr.  H.  C.  Finkel. 

Poland:  Mr.  Jan Zagleniczny. 

Siam:  Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi. 

South  Africa:  Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth,  Mr.  W.  Gemmill,  Mr.  A. 
Crawford. 

Switzerland:  Dr.  Hans  Sulzer. 

Tropical  America:  Dr.  Santos  A.  Dominici  (Venezuela),  Dr. 
Luis  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes  (Cuba),  Mr.  V.  A.  Pujazon  (Peru). 
Secretary,  Mr.  H.  J.  W.  Hetherington  (Great  Britain). 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  APPLICATION  OF  TnE 

HOURS-OF-WORK  CONVENTION  TO  SPECIAL  COUNTRIES,  AS 

PROVIDED  IN  ARTICLE  405  OF  THE  TREATY  OF  PEACE. 

The  commission  has  the  honor  to  present  the  following  report: 

It  held  10  sessions,  the  first  being  on  November  11  and  the  last 
on  November  22.  At  its  first  meeting  the  Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes 
(Great  Britain)  was  elected  chairman,  and  Mr.  Bames  presided 
throughout  all  deliberations  of  the  commission. 

The  commission  took  the  view  that  its  functions  were  confined 
strictly  to  the  consideration  of  the  application  of  the  48-hour  con¬ 
vention  to  special  countries.  It  did  not  consider  it  to  be  within  its 

1  This  article  includes  the  following  paragraph: 

“In  framing  any  recommendation  or  draft  convention  of  general  application,  the 
conference  shall  have  due  regard  to  those  countries  in  which  climatic  conditions, 
the  imperfect  development  of  industrial  organization  or  other  special  circumstances 
make  the  industrial  conditions  substantially  different,  and  shall  suggest  the  modi¬ 
fications,  if  any,  which  it  considers  may  be  required  to  meet  the  case  of  such  countries.” 


230 


APPENDIX 


province  to  make  special  recommendations  on  the  hours  of  work  of 
particular  classes  of  workers.  It  conducted  all  its  deliberations  on 
the  understanding  that  nothing  embodied  in  the  modified  conven¬ 
tions  which  it  proposed  nor  in  its  further  suggestions  should  be  con¬ 
strued  as  affording  any  jurisdiction  for  an  increase  of  hours  in  the 
case  of  those  workers  who,  though  they  came  within  the  terms  of 
the  conventions,  had  already  secured  shorter  working  hours. 

The  commission,  however,  believes  that  all  the  recommendations 
embodied  in  its  report,  represent  a  substantial  improvement  in  the 
conditions  of  the  workers  in  the  countries  which  it  has  considered. 

On  the  subject  of  children’s  employment  the  commission  passed 
the  following  resolution: 

The  commission  affirms  the  principle  that,  as  regards  the  employment  of  children 
in  industrial  undertakings  in  which  hours  of  work  have  been  limited  by  this  con¬ 
vention,  the  limit  of  8  hours  should  be  regarded  everywhere  as  an  absolute  maxi¬ 
mum,  and  that,  if  in  any  country  signatory  to  this  convention  there  are  children 
working  more  than  8  hours  per  day  in  industrial  undertakings,  such  practice  should 
be  discontinued. 

The  commission  is  happy  to  report  that  it  was  able  to  arrive  at 
most  of  its  decisions  with  a  considerable  degree  of  unanimity.  The 
only  point  of  principle  on  which  there  was  a  fundamental  divergence 
of  opinion  was  on  the  question  of  the  application  of  the  convention 
to  Japan.  On  this  matter,  the  Japanese  labor  delegate  held  the  view 
that  Japan  should  be  treated  in  precisely  the  same  way  as  the  other 
countries  which  were  parties  to  the  convention,  and  that  no  special 
modifications  should  be  permitted.  The  grounds  for  that  opinion 
are  set  forth  in  the  attached  minority  report. 

The  draft  convention  embodying  the  detailed  modifications  with 
regard  to  Japan  was  accepted  by  15  votes  to  3.  The  commission  de¬ 
sires  to  express  its  appreciation  of  the  conciliatory  spirit  which  was 
displayed  by  the  representative  of  Japan  in  the  protracted  discus¬ 
sions  which  preceded  the  adoption  of  the  modified  draft  convention. 

The  reports  on  India,  Siam,  Persia,  Tropical  America,  and  South 
Africa,  were  adopted  nem.  con.  The  report  on  China  was  adopted 
by  10  votes  to  2. 

The  commission  also  had  referred  to  it,  from  the  commission  on 
hours  of  work,  the  request  of  the  Government  delegates  of  Greece  and 
Roumania,  that  some  delay  be  granted  to  those  countries  in  the 
application  of  the  main  contention.  The  commission  unfortunately 
was  not  in  a  position  to  hear  statements  from  the  different  interests 
represented  in  these  countries,  and  has,  therefore,  adjourned  the 
consideration  of  this  matter  for  a  short  time.  It  will  submit  at  an 
early  date  a  supplementary  report  as  regards  these  two  countries. 

I.  Japan. 

The  position  of  Japan  presents  a  problem  of  some  difficulty. 
Japan  is  a  country  whose  industry  is  still  largely  domestic  but  which 
is  rapidly  becoming  organized  along  the  lines  of  modern  factories. 
During  recent  years  the  progress  in  the  organizing  of  Japanese 
industry  has  been  very  great.  At  the  same  time  Japan  has  had  very 
little  experience  in  factory  legislation.  The  hours  of  work  have 
been  very  long  and  in  the  case  of  adult  male  workers  no  regulation 
of  hours  of  work  exists  at  all.  There  is  no  provision  for  a  weekly 
holiday;  and  over  and  above  the  hours  which  custom  has  estab¬ 
lished,  overtime  to  the  extent  of  two  or  three  hours  a  day  is  very 
common.  The  factory  act  of  Japan  applies  only  to  women  and 
children.  It  prescribes  a  working  day  of  13  hours  as  a  maximum. 
But  in  the  silk  industry,  for  example,  which  is  the  largest  industry  in 
Japan,  an  additional  hour  of  overtime  is  permitted  on  120  days  in  the 
year.  The  nominal  hours  of  work  in  cotton  mills  are  11  a  day  and  in 
some  industries,  like  shipbuilding  and  iron  works,  the  nominal  num¬ 
ber  of  hours  is  10,  but  in  all  cases  it  has  to  be  remembered  that  overtime 
is  universal  and  extensive.  Probably  in  most  industries  other  than 
silk  it  is  accurate  to  say  the  usual  working  day  is  12  hours. 

Again  such  restriction  as  exists  in  virtue  of  the  factory  act,  applies 
only  to  factories  employing  15  persons  or  more,  so  that  in  a  country  in 
which  there  is  still  a  large  number  of  domestic  industries,  a  consider¬ 
able  proportion  of  the  operatives  are  not  subject  to  any  limitation  of 


hours.  Thus  of  900,000  workers  in  silk,  47  per  cent  come  under  the 
scope  of  the  law;  53  per  cent  do  not. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  seemed  to  the  commission  to  be  imprac¬ 
ticable  to  reduce  the  hours  of  work  in  Japan  at  once  to  the  level 
which  is  contemplated  for  western  countries.  At  the  same  time  the 
Japanese  Government  has  given  expression  to  its  intention  to  make 
“every  effort  to  accelerate  the  unqualified  adoption  of  the  rule  in 
harmony  with  the  general  trend  of  the  world.” 

The  commission  is,  therefore,  of  opinion  that  in  view  of  this  dec¬ 
laration  from  the  Japanese  Government,  that  Government  might 
properly  be  asked  to  bring  into  force  within  a  reasonable  period 
measures  providing  for  a  substantial  reduction  both  in  the  standard 
working-day  in  all  industries  and  in  the  amount  of  overtime  permitted . 

The  commission,  therefore,  proposes  to  apply  to  Japan  the  modified 
convention  as  set  forth  below,  and  at  the  same  time  desires  to  place 
on  record  its  view  that  the  provisions  contained  in  the  modified 
convention  are  to  be  regarded  as  transitional  and  tempo  ran,-  and  as 
designed  mainly  to  provide  an  intermediate  step  between  the  exist¬ 
ing  condition  of  Japanese  industry  and  the  condition  which  will 
ensue  on  the  application  of  the  main  convention.  The  commission 
is  of  opinion  that  the  conference  might  request  the  Japanese  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  take  into  consideration  the  possibility  of  applying  the 
provisions  of  the  main  convention  within  a  period  of  five  years 
after  the  coming  into  effect  of  this  modified  convention. 

It  is  clear  to  the  commission  that  it  is  necessary  to  introduce  differ¬ 
entiation  into  the  treatment  of  Japanese  industries.  Coal  mining, 
for  example,  might  properly  be  brought  at  once  within  the  scope 
of  the  main  conventio'n;  raw  silk,  on  the  other  hand,  would  appear 
to  require  a  normal  working  week  of  60  hours.  All  other  industries, 
it  seemed,  might  be  operated  on  the  basis  of  a  9^-hour  daily  maxi¬ 
mum,  or  a  57-hour  week.  The  commission  also  favors  the  reduction 
of  the  unit  defined  as  a  factory  to  10  instead  of  (as  at  present)  15. 
These  arrangements,  together  with  the  readjustments  which  will 
be  necessary  in  consequence  of  acceptance  by  the  Japanese  Govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Bern  convention  regarding  the  night  work  of  women, 
of  the  principle  of  a  weekly  day  of  rest,  will  naturally  cause  some 
disturbance  of  existing  conditions.  The  commission  is  of  opinion 
that  the  most  satisfactory  way  to  deal  with  this  is  to  allow  a  short 
delay  in  bringing  the  convention  into  effect. 

These  provisions,  representing  as  they  do  considerable  advance  on 
present  practice  of  Japan  with  regard  to  legislative  principle,  to  the 
establishment  of  a  normal  working  day  and  to  the  extent  of  over¬ 
time  permitted,  appear  to  the  commission  to  provide  a  convenient 
and  reasonable  step  between  existing  conditions  and  the  condition 
which  the  Japanese  Government  desires  to  bring  into  being. 

Modifications  of  the  Draft  Convention. 

The  modifications  applicable  to  Japan  shall  be  as  follows: 

1.  The  limitation  of  the  hours  of  work  shall  apply  to  those  indus¬ 
trial  undertakings  enumerated  in— 

Article  1  (a)  of  the  draft  convention. 

Article  1  (b)  of  the  draft  convention,  provided  that  there  are  10  or 
more  workers  employed  in  the  undertakings. 

Article  1  (c)  of  the  draft  convention  in  so  far  as  these  undertakings 
are  defined  as  “factories”  according  to  the  national  law. 

Article  1  (d)  of  the  draft  convention,  excluding,  however,  the 
transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  inland  waterway  and  road  and 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  warehouses, 
and  transport  by  hand. 

The  limitation  of  hours  of  work  shall  also  apply,  regardless  of  the 
number  of  persons  employed,  to  such  of  the  industrial  undertakings 
enumerated  in  article  1  (6)  and  (c)  as  are  declared  by  the  competent 
authority  to  be  either  highly  dangerous  or  to  involve  unhealthful 
processes. 

The  competent  authority  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which 
separates  industry  on  the  one  side  and  commerce  and  agriculture  on 
the  other. 


APPENDIX 


2.  For  workers  under  15  years  of  age  and  miners  engaged  in  under¬ 
ground  work  in  the  mines,  the  limit  of  48  hours  per  week  of  actual 
work  shall  be  applied. 

3.  For  workers  above  15  years  of  age,  and  workers  engaged  outside 
the  mines,  and  in  other  industries  the  following  limits  shall  apply: 

(a)  in  the  raw  silk  industry.  60  actual  working  hours  per  week; 

( b )  in  other  industrial  undertakings,  57  actual  working  hours. 

4.  The  provisions  of  articles  2,  3,  and  4  of  the  main  convention 
shall  apply  to  Japan,  with  such  modifications  of  the  stated  number 
of  hours  as  may  be  necessary  to  bring  them  into  conformity  with  the 
provisions  of  articles  2  and  3  of  this  modified  convention. 

5.  Overtime  shall  be  regulated  in  accordance  with  the  provisions 
of  the  main  convention. 

6.  The  weekly  rest  period  of  24  consecutive  hours  shall  be  applied 
to  all  classes  of  workers. 

7.  This  modified  convention  shall  be  brought  into  force  not  later 
than  July  1,  1922,  except  that  the  provisions  of  article  4  of  the  main 
convention  shall  be  brought  into  force  not  later  than  July  1,  1923. 
The  age  of  15  mentioned  in  article  2  shall  be  raised  to  16,  not  later 
than  July  1,  1925. 

II.  India. 

The  commission  has  had  the  advantage  of  access  to  a  good  deal 
of  the  available  information  about  Indian  industrial  conditions,  by 
means  of  the  official  replies  of  the  Indian  Government  and  the  state¬ 
ments  of  the  delegates  of  the  Government,  the  employers,  and  the 
workers.  But  it  is  clear  that  that  information  covers  only  a  rela¬ 
tively  small  part  of  the  ground,  mainly  for  the  reason  that  in  India 
conditions  do  not  approximate  to  anything  which  is  known  in  the 
western  world.  The  total  number  of  persons  in  British  India  em¬ 
ployed  in  organized  industrial  undertakings,  such  as  factories, 
mines,  and  railways,  constitutes  an  insignificant  proportion  of  the 
whole  population.  Other  industries  are  still  almost  universally  on 
a  small  scale,  and  the  predominant  industry  of  India  is  agriculture. 

At  the  same  time  it  appears  that  such  industries  as  exist  in  India, 
especially  textiles  and  Government  and  private  railway  and  engi¬ 
neering  shops,  are  quite  well  organized.  It  is  true  that  present 
Indian  conditions  are  not  such  as  to  make  easy  in  the  immediate 
future  either  large  scale  factory  production  or  the  application  of 
western  standards  in  the  restriction  of  working  hours.  Neverthe¬ 
less,  in  the  industries  mentioned,  something  has  already  been  done 
in  both  directions.  India  has  had  three  factory  laws,  each  law 
marking  a  substantial  advance  over  its  predecessor.  The  commis¬ 
sion  had  had  evidence  that  the  laws  have  been  well  administered 
and  are  effective. 

The  factory  law  at  present  covers  mainly  textiles  and  certain 
branches  of  railway  and  engineering  work,  and  applies  only  to 
establishments  in  which  at  least  50  persons  are  employed,  though  it 
is  possible,  by  administrative  order  (which  has  often  been  brought 
into  effect  where  abuses  were  suspected)  to  bring  under  the  law 
establishments  employing  20  persons. 

The  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  present  conference 
can  legislate  usefully  only  with  regard  to  large  industrial  undertak¬ 
ings,  such  as  are  already  within  the  scope  of  the  factory  acts,  and 
mines.  With  regard  to  these  (i.  e.,  all  industries  at  present  under  the 
factory  acts,  mines,  and  certain  branches  of  railway  and  iron  works), 
the  commission  recommends  that  the  Government  of  India  should 
be  asked  to  adopt  the  principle  of  a  60-hour  week. 

The  commission,  however,  recommends  that  the  conference  lay 
before  the  Government  of  India  a  very  urgent  request  that  it  should 
consider  two  important  matters;  first,  the  possibility  of  adopting  a 
lower  limit  for  underground  work  in  mines,  and  secondly,  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  adopting,  in  the  light  of  standards  accepted  in  other  coun¬ 
tries,  a  modified  definition  of  “factory,”  which  would  reduce  the 
number  of  workers  required  to  bring  a  factory  under  the  scope  of 
the  act.  The  commission  thinks  that  it  should  be  possible  at  an 
early  date  to  limit  the  hours  of  underground  work  in  mines  to  54, 


231 

or  even  lower;  and  recommends  this  step  to  the  favorable  considera¬ 
tion  of  the  Government  of  India. 

With  regard  to  small  industries,  not  coming  under  the  provi¬ 
sions  of  the  factory  act,  the  Government  of  India  might  be  requested 
to  expedite  as  much  as  possible  the  collection  of  information  and 
statistical  data.  And  as,  apart  from  this,  the  commission  understands 
that  inquiries  were  initiated  several  months  ago  relating  to  the 
amendment  of  the  factory  act  with  a  view  to  bettering  the  conditions 
of  labor,  the  Government  of  India  might  also  be  requested  to  com¬ 
municate  at  the  earliest  possible  date,  and  if  possible  before  the  next 
conference,  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the  results  of  these 
inquiries  and  the  proposals  of  the  Government  for  carrying  into 
effect  the  tendencies  apparent  in  modern  legislation. 

The  commission  therefore  recommends  the  conference  to  em¬ 
body  the  substance  of  paragraph  4  of  this  report  in  the  form  of  a  con¬ 
vention,  and  to  communicate  to  the  Government  of  India  the  obser¬ 
vations  and  requests  of  the  remaining  paragraphs. 

III.  China. 

With  regard  to  China  the  commission  had  not  had  as  much  informa¬ 
tion  as  it  would  desire.  It,  therefore,  does  not  feel  itself  in  a  posi¬ 
tion  to  make  far-reaching  recommendations.  • 

The  delegate  of  the  Chinese  Government  asked  the  commission 
to  delay  framing  any  recommendation  on  the  subject  of  China  for 
the  time  being.  He  pointed  out  that  China  is  still  very  largely  an 
undeveloped  country,  that  there  is  very  little  use  of  modem  ma¬ 
chinery,  and  that  the  population  is  not  industrialized.  It  is  clear 
to  the  commission  that  there  are  certain  special  difficulties  in 
China — the  vast  extent  of  the  territory,  the  fact  that  the  Chinese 
Government  does  not  possess  tariff  autonomy,  and  the  existence  of 
foreign  settlements  and  leased  territories  within  the  boundaries  of 
China. 

The  commission  recognizes  that  the  existence  of  these  conditions, 
combined  with  the  fact  that  China  has  had  no  experience  at  all  in 
factory  legislation,  makes  it  impossible  for  China  immediately  to 
conform  to  western  standards. 

At  the  same  time,  there  exist  within  China  some  fairly  well  organ¬ 
ized  factories.  The  commission  attaches  great  importance  to  the 
acceptance  by  the  Chinese  Government  of  the  principle  of  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  labor  by  factory  legislation.  It  further  suggests  that  a 
beginning  should  be  made  as  soon  as  possible  in  the  framing  and  ad¬ 
ministration  of  such  legislation  with  reference  to  such  important 
industry  as  now  exists. 

The  commission  therefore  proposes  that  China  be  asked  to  adhere 
to  the  principle  of  the  protection  of  labor  by  factory  legislation,  and 
that,  further,  the  Chinese  Government  be  asked  to  report  to  the  con¬ 
ference  next  year  in  what  way  it  is  prepared  to  apply  that  principle. 
It  suggests  for  the  consideration  of  the  Chinese  Government  the 
possibility  of  adopting  a  convention  embodying  the  principle  of  a 
10-hour  day  or  a  60-hour  week  for  adult  workers  and  an  8-hour  day 
or  a  48-hour  week  for  employed  persons  under  15  years  of  age;  and 
embodying  also  the  principle  of  a  weekly  rest  day.  It  suggests 
that  all  factories  employing  over  100  workers  should  come  within 
the  scope  of  the  projected  legislation. 

In  view  of  the  special  difficulties  which  the  Chinese  Government 
may  experience  from  the  existence,  within  the  area  of  China,  of  for¬ 
eign  settlements  and  leased  territories,  the  commission  suggests  that 
the  conference  should  make  the  necessary  representations  to  the 
Governments  concerned  (that  is,  to  those  Governments  which  at 
present  exercise  jurisdiction  in  these  settlements  and  territories 
under  treaties  and  engagements  with  China)  to  enforce  in  their 
territories  within  China  the  same  restrictions  as  the  Chinese  Gov¬ 
ernment  has  accepted;  or,  in  the  alternative,  to  decree  that  labor 
legislation  adopted  by  the  Government  of  China  shall  be  enforced 
by  that  Government  within  those  foreign  settlements  and  terri¬ 
tories  where  extraterritorial  jurisdiction  exists  at  present. 


232 


APPENDIX 


IV.  Persia  and  Siam. 

The  commission  heard  the  statements  of  the  delegates  of  these 
countries  and  reviewed  the  information  in  the  replies  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernments  to  the  questionnaire  of  the  Organizing  Committee. 

It  is  clear  that  industry  in  both  countries,  especially  in  Persia,  is 
still  at  a  relatively  low  level  of  organization.  But  the  commission 
felt  that  it  had  not  before  it  sufficiently  exact  information  to  enable 
it  to  frame  any  detailed  proposals.  It  therefore  recommends  the 
conference  to  accept  the  following  suggestions: 

(1)  That  at  the  moment  the  convention  can  not  be  applied  to 
either  country. 

(2)  That  the  Governments  of  Persia  and  Siam  be  requested  to 
accept  the  principle  of  the  protection  of  labor  by  factory  legislation; 
and 

(3)  That  the  competent  authorities  of  Persia  and  Siam,  in  view 
of  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  peace  governing  the  International 
Labor  Organization,  be  requested  to  collect  information  in  the  com¬ 
ing  year  and  to  submit  it,  together  with  their  proposals  for  carrying 
into  effect  the  principle  enunciated  in  clause  (2)  above,  to  the  next 
International  Labor  Conference. 

V.  South  Africa. 

The  three  South  African  delegates  were  unanimous  in  stating  that 
it  was  the  intention  of  South  Africa  to  support  and  conform  to  the 
main  convention  as  at  present  drafted.  They  believed  that  no 
modifications  would  be  required  for  the  great  part  of  South  African 
industry.  They  felt,  however,  that  it  might  be  necessary  tempo¬ 
rarily  to  modify  the  maximum  number  of  weekly  hours  in  the  case 
of  a  few  industries,  such  as  coal  mining  and  sugar  refining,  in  which 
a  similar  type  of  workman  is  employed  as  in  the  same  industries  in 
India  and  other  eastern  countries,  and  in  which  working  hours  are 
at  present  in  excess  of  48  hours  per  week.  To  some  degree  the  same 
considerations  arise  in  these  industries  as  in  the  eastern  countries 
which  the  committee  had  already  examined,  and  in  virtue  of  which 
the  committee  had  accepted  the  view  that  for  these  countries  some 
modifications  of  the  main  convention  might  properly  be  made. 

The  South  African  delegates,  however,  did  not  think  it  necessary 
at  present  to  have  any  special  modification  of  the  convention  made 
in  favor  of  South  Africa,  more  especially  as  it  may  be  found  possible 
to  accept  the  convention  without  modification.  In  any  case,  the 
delegates  stated  that  if  any  modification  were  required,  the  hours 
of  work  in  the  cases  specified  would  not  exceed  54  per  week;  and 
the  modifications  would  not  operate  for  a  longer  period  than  the 
corresponding  modifications  in  the  countries  referred  to. 

The  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that,  in  the  circumstances  of 
South  African  industry,  the  view  expressed  by  the  South  African 
delegation  is  reasonable.  It  therefore  recommends  the  conference 
to  make  no  modifications  of  the  convention  as  regards  South  Africa 
at  present,  and  to  request  the  Government  of  South  Africa  to  lay 
before  the  next  conference  a  statement  as  to  the  modifications  (if 
any),  within  the  limits  prescribed  above,  which  it  thinks  it  desirable 
to  adopt. 

VI.  Tropical  America. 

The  commission  had  before  it  the  statement  of  the  representatives 
of  Cuba,  which  has  been  circulated  to  the  conference,  and  had  evi¬ 
dence  in  support  of  this  statement  from  the  representatives  of  other 
countries  of  tropical  America.  All  the  delegates  from  these  coun¬ 
tries,  representing  the  Governments,  employers,  and  workers,  were 
agreed  that  the  main  convention  could  be  applied  in  these  countries 
in  respect  of  nearly  all  industrial  occupations.  They  represented, 
however,  that  the  one  serious  difficulty  which  confronted  them  was 
in  the  case  of  those  industries  which  were  very  closely  allied  to 
agriculture. 

In  sugar  plantations,  for  example,  it  appears  to  be  necessary 
within  24  hours  of  the  cutting  of  the  cane  so  to  prepare  it  that  the 
process  of  deterioration,  which  sets  in  very  rapidly,  can  be  arrested. 
At  this  stage  the  cane  undergoes  a  certain  manufacturing  and  chem¬ 
ical  process,  and  since  the  industry  is  seasonal  and  depends  to  a  con¬ 


siderable  extent  on  temporary  immigrant  labor  it  would  be  im¬ 
possible  to  bring  this  under  the  scope  of  the  main  convention. 

Hence,  in  the  view  of  the  representatives  of  the  countries  of 
tropical  America,  the  operations  immediately  necessary  for  arresting 
the  deterioration  of  such  agricultural  products  as  are  very  perishable 
in  their  nature  so  as  to  render  them  fit  for  manufacture  or  storage 
might  properly  be  regarded  by  the  competent  national  authority, 
for  the  purpose  of  the  application  of  the  convention,  as  agricultural 
processes. 

It  appeared  to  the  commission  that  since,  under  the  terms  of  the 
main  convention,  the  solution  of  this  difficulty  was  entirely  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  competent  national  authority,  it  was  un¬ 
necessary  for  the  commission  to  take  any  action  on  the  matter.  But 
in  view  of  the  desire  of  the  representatives  of  the  tropical  American 
countries  to  have  this  matter  brought  before  the  conference  the 
commission  includes  this  section  in  its  report. 

(Signed)  G.  N.  Barnes,  Chairman. 

H.  J.  W.  Hetherington,  Secretary. 


MINORITY  REPORT  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  SHICHIRO  MDTO,  SUB¬ 
STITUTE  FOR  UHEI  MASUMOTO,  LABOR  DELEGATE  OF  JAPAN. 

As  the  representative  of  the  Japanese  labor  delegation,  I  sub¬ 
mitted  for  your  consideration  our  proposition  that  Japan  should  not 
be  considered  a  country  coming  under  article  405  of  the  peace 
treaty  with  special  conditions.  My  proposition  was  defeated. 

My  protest  against  the  exception  of  Japan  from  the  general  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  convention  was  defeated  in  spite  of  my  presentation 
of  the  following  facts  and  arguments.  I  beg  to  submit  the  following 
as  a  minority  report  for  discussion  by  the  full  conference: 

1.  Climatically  speaking,  Japan  is  not  a  tropical  country,  but  is 
similar  to  Italy,  Spain,  and  the  United  States.  As  ably  presented 
by  Prof.  Huntington  of  Harvard  University  in  his  “Civilization 
and  Climate,”  Japan  lies  in  a  zone  favorable  to  her  industrial  and 
cultural  activities,  not  unlike  North  America  and  Europe. 

2.  Although  Japanese  industry  is  said  to  be  in  its  infant  stage,  its 
progress  in  the  past  50  years  is  an  enviable  commentary  on  its  tre¬ 
mendous  ability  and  development.  Especially  in  view  of  the  enor¬ 
mous  progress  made  during  the  Great  War,  Japan  is  industrially  the 
peer  of  Italy  and  Spain,  if  not  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
of  America. 

3.  Although  family  industry  still  prevails,  it  is  being  transformed 
with  great  rapidity  into  the  industrial  condition  of  modern  fac¬ 
tories.  In  the  course  of  one  year,  1916-17,  there  was  an  enormous 
increase  of  230,000  factory  workers.  Besides,  the  competitive 
character  of  Japanese  manufacturing  industry  is  widely  recognized 
by  Occidental  countries. 

4.  In  regions  around  Osaka,  the  Manchester  of  Japan,  there  is  an 
increasing  number  of  Japanese  factories  adopting  the  8-hour  day 
regulation  as  a  basic  principle.  The  rapid  adoption  by  European 
countries  of  the  8-hour  law  since  the  armistice  runs  parallel  to  this 
singular  phenomenon  in  Japan. 

5.  The  opposition  of  Japanese  employers  to  the  general  application 
of  the  principle  in  question  is  due  to  their  desire  to  retain  their 
advantageous  position,  which,  having  been  secured  through  the 
exploitation  of  workers,  stands  in  the  way  of  raising  the  status  of 
our  workers  and,  though  the  employers  do  not  recognize  this,  of 
raising  their  productive  efficiency. 

6.  The  opposition  of  the  Japanese  Government  to  our  legitimate 
demands  is  due  to  its  desire  to  protect  these  employers  at  the  expense 
of  the  workers,  who  have  no  voice  in  the  determination  of  their 
industrial  conditions.  The  repressive  measures  heretofore  adopted 
by  the  Government  are  unjust,  unreasonable,  and  partial.  Long 
hours  and  low  wages  can  no  longer  be  the  weapon  of  our  employers. 
The  factory  act  of  Japan  is  a  sad  reflection  of  the  pressure  brought 
to  bear  by  the  employers  upon  the  Government. 

7.  It  is  said  that  Japanese  laborers  lack  the  necessary  efficiency. 
The  real  reason  for  this  lack  of  efficiency  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 


APPENDIX 


233 


Japanese  laborers  have  been  compelled  to  work  prolonged,  tiresome 
hours,  with  no  hope  of  ever  obtaining  any  rest  whereby  their  ex¬ 
hausted  energies  could  be  replenished. 

8.  The  Government  and  employers  claim  that  a  sudden  change  in 
working  hours  of  laborers  will  be  injurious  to  industry  and  labor. 
But  I  firmly  maintain  that  the  general  application  of  the  basic  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  8-huur  day  is  the  desire  of  all  the  industrial  workers  of 
Japan.  This  desire  of  the  workers  is  firmly  supported  by  public 
opinion  in  Japan.  It  can  neither  be  unprofitable  nor  detrimental 
to  bring  about  such  a  change  in  industry  as  will  allow  rest  and 
recreation  to  enervated  workers.  Inasmuch  as  labor  in  Japan  is 
mercilessly  exploited  by  the  employers,  this  change  should  be 
welcome  to  those  who  really  have  at  heart  the  promotion  of  jus¬ 
tice  and  humanity  in  industry  as  the  goal  of  human  society. 

Shichiro  Muto. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  APPLI¬ 
CATION  OF  THE  HOURS-OF-WORK  CONVENTION  TO  SPECIAL 

COUNTRIES,  AS  PROVIDED  IN  ARTICLE  405  OF  THE  TREATY 

OF  PEACE. 

In  its  previous  report  the  commission  was  unable  to  take  up  the 
requests  of  the  delegates  of  the  Governments  of  Greece  and  Rou- 
mania  that  a  delay  should  be  granted  in  the  application  of  the 
convention  on  hours  of  work  to  these  countries. 

The  commission  has  now  had  an  opportunity  to  consider  the 
matter,  and  has  heard  and  read  the  statements  of  the  delegates  of 
these  countries.  It  now  presents  the  following  report: 

■Greece. 

The  conditions  which  appear  to  the  delegates  of  the  Greek  Govern¬ 
ment  to  make  it  desirable  that  some  delay  in  the  application  of  the 
convention  to  Greece  should  be  allowed  are: 

(1)  The  relatively  undeveloped  state  of  Greek  industry,  its  lack 
of  modem  appliances,  and,  therefore,  its  relatively  low  productivity; 

(2)  The  devastation  by  fire  of  Saloniki,  which  is  one  of  the  most 
important  industrial  areas  of  Greece,  and  the  general  disturbance  of 
Greek  economic  development  during  the  Balkan  and  European 
wars;  and 

(3)  The  fact  that  considerable  new  areas  of  territory  have  been 
brought  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Greek  Government,  so  that  it 
will  take  some  time  to  organize,  not  only  industry,  but  efficient 
administrative  services  in  these  new  regions. 

The  last  argument  appeared  to  the  commission  to  have  consider¬ 
able  cogency.  By  12  votes  to  4  it  was  decided  that  the  Greek 
Government  had  established  a  case  for  some  measure  of  exceptional 
treatment.  The  commission  had  the  less  hesitation  in  coming  to 
this  conclusion,  since  the  delay  which  was  asked  for  was  not  long, 
and  the  Greek  Government  has  undertaken  to  apply  progressively 
the  terms  of  the  convention  within  the  period  of  grace  in  such 
stages  as  it  is  possible  for  them  to  do  so. 

The  Greek  Government  representatives  submitted  in  their 
statement  the  attached  classification  of  the  industries  of  their 
country  in  the  order  of  the  severity  of  their  demands  upon  the 
workers.  It  was  understood  by  the  commission  that  in  respect  to 
industries  in  Schedule  A  of  this  classification,  the  terms  of  the  main 
convention  were  already  being  applied. 

The  commission,  therefore,  resolved  to  recommend  that  the  confer¬ 
ence  grant  a  delay  of  two  years  after  the  date  on  which  the  convention 
comes  into  general  operation,  in  respect  to  the  industries  mentioned 
in  Schedule  B  of  the  classification,  and  a  delay  of  three  years  in 
the  industries  mentioned  in  Schedule  C. 

Schedule  of  Industries. 

A.  INDUSTRIES  VERY  UNHYGIENIC  AND  LABORIOUS. 

(1)  Underground  mining. 

(2)  Lead  and  arsenic  metallurgy. 

(3)  Manufacture  of  explosives. 

(4)  Loading  and  unloading  coal. 


B.  INDUSTRIES  ORDINARILY  UNHYGIENIC  AND  LABORIOUS. 

(1)  Carbon  bisulphide  works. 

(2)  Acids  works. 

(3)  Tanneries. 

(4)  Paper  mills. 

(5)  Printing. 

(6)  Sawmills. 

(7)  Warehouses  for  the  handling  and  preparation  of  tobacco. 

(8)  Surface  mining. 

(9)  Foundries. 

(10)  Lime  works. 

(11)  Dye  works. 

(12)  Glass  works  (blowers). 

(13)  Gas  works  (firemen). 

(14)  Washeries  (coke,  mineral,  etc.) 

(15)  Loading  and  unloading  merchandise. 

C.  ORDINARY  INDUSTRIES. 

(1)  Mechanical  industries:  Machine  shops  for  engines,  safes,  scales,  beds,  tacks, 
shells  (sporting),  iron  foundries,  bronze  foundries,  tin  shops,  plating  shops,  manufac¬ 
tories  of  hydraulic  apparatus. 

(2)  Constructional  industries:  Lime  kilns,  cement  works,  plasterers’  shops,  tile 
yards,  manufactories  of  bricks  and  pavements,  potteries,  marble  yards,  excavating 
and  building  work. 

(3)  Textile  industries:  Spinning  and  weaving  mills  of  all  kinds,  except  dye  works. 

(4)  Food  industries:  Flour  and  grist  mills,  bakeries,  macaroni  factories,  manufac¬ 
tories  of  wines,  alcohol,  and  drinks,  oil  works,  breweries,  manufactories  of  ice  and 
carbonated  drinks,  manufactories  of  confectioners’  products  and  chocolate,  manufac¬ 
tories  of  sausages  and  preserves,  slaughterhouses  and  butcher  shops. 

(5)  Chemical  industries:  Manufactories  of  synthetic  colors,  glass  works  (except  the 
blowers),  manufactories  of  essence  of  turpentine  and  tartar,  manufactories  of  oxygen 
and  pharmaceutical  products,  manufactories  of  flaxseed  oil,  manufactories  of  glycer¬ 
ine,  manufactories  of  calcium  carbide,  gas  works  (except  the  firemen.) 

(6)  Leather  industries:  Shoe  factories,  manufactories  of  leather  goods. 

(7)  Paper  and  printing  industries:  Manufactories  of  envelopes,  record  books,  boxes, 
bags,  bookbinding,  lithographing  and  zinc-engraving  shops. 

(8)  Clothing  industries:  Clothing  shops,  underwear  and  trimmings,  workshops  for 
pressing,  workshops  for  bed  coverings,  artificial  flowers,  feathers  and  trimmings,  hat 
and  umbrella  factories. 

(9)  Woodworking  industries:  Joiners’  shops,  coopers’  sheds,  wagon  factories, 
manufactories  of  furniture  and  chairs,  picture-framing  establishments,  brush  and 
broom  factories. 

(10)  Electrical  industries:  Power  houses,  shops  for  electrical  installations. 

(11)  Transportation  by  land:  Employees  on  railroads  and  sti eet  cars,  firemen, 
drivers,  and  carters. 

Roumania. 

The  considerations  which  moved  the  representatives  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  of  Roumania  to  ask  for  a  delay  of  three  years  were  of  the 
same  character  as  those  which  had  been  presented  in  the  case  of 
Greece.  In  Roumania,  moreover,  the  demobilization  of  the  army 
was  still  incomplete,  and  during  the  retreat  of  the  Roumanian  army 
and  in  the  enemy  occupation  of  Roumanian  territory  the  greater  part 
of  the  machinery  of  the  country  was  removed.  The  Roumanian 
delegates  indicated  that  the  manufacturing  countries  of  Europe  had 
informed  Roumanian  manufacturers  that  many  months  must  neces¬ 
sarily  elapse  before  they  could  deliver  sufficient  machinery  to  replace 
that  which  had  been  destroyed  and  removed  in  the  course  of  the  war. 

Under  those  conditions  it  was  the  almost  unanimous  view  of  the 
commission  (one  member  only  dissenting)  that  a  delay  should  be 
granted  to  Roumania.  It,  therefore,  recommends  that  the  conference 
accede  to  the  request  of  the  Government  delegates  of  Roumania  that 
the  convention  should  come  into  operation  in  Roumania  at  a  date 
not  more  than  three  years  later  than  that  on  which  it  comes  into  effect 
in  other  countries. 

(Signed)  G.  N.  Barnes,  Chairman. 

H.  J.  W.  Hetherington,  Secretary. 


COMMISSION  ON  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

Chairman,  Mr.  Max  Lazard  (France). 

Government  delegates:  Mr.  F.  A.  Acland  (Canada),  substitute  for 
Hon.  G.  D.  Robertson ;  Mr.  C.  V.  Bramsnaes  (Denmark);  Dr.  G.  di 
Palma  Castiglione  (Italy);  Mr.  Armand  Julin  (Belgium),  substitute 
for  Mr.  Michel  L6vie;  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spain);  Mr.  Thomas  Fer- 


234 


APPENDIX 


nandes  (Portugal),  substitute  for  Mr.  Barbosa;  Mr.  Max  Lazard 
(France);  Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (Great  Britain);  substitute  for  Right 
Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes;  Mr.  John  Sofianopoulos  (Greece);  Mr.  Fran- 
ciszek  Sokal  (Poland). 

Employers’  delegates:  Mr.  H.  Blomjous  (Netherlands),  substitute 
for  Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Yerkade;  Mr.  E.  Baroni  (Italy);  Mr.  Louis  Gudrin 
(France);  Dr.  Shogo  Hasegawa  (Italy),  substitute  for  Mr.  Sanji 
Muto;  Mr.  Antoine  Ivriz  (Czecho-Slovakia),  substitute  for  Mr. 
Hodacz;  Mr.  G.  Paus  (Norway);  Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (Canada), 
substitute  for  Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons;  Mr.  A.  J.  C.  Ross  (Great  Britain), 
substitute  for  Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks;  Mr.  H.  Vestesen  (Denmark); 
Mr.  J.  Zagleniczny  (Poland). 

Workers’  delegates:  Mr.  Gino  Baldesi  (Italy); Mr.  M.  Domae  (Japan), 
substitute  for  Mr.  U.  Masumoto;  Mr.  P.  M.  Draper  (Canada),  pro¬ 
visional  substitute  for  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States);  Mr.  G.  Du- 
moulin  (France),  substitute  for  Mr.  L6on  Jouhaux;  Mr.  C.  F.  Mad¬ 
sen  (Denmark);  Mr.  P.  Serrarens  (Netherlands),  substitute  for  Mr. 
Jan  Oudegeest;  Mr.  J.  Sexton  (Great  Britain),  substitute  for  Mr. 
G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning;  Mr.  G.  Solau  (Belgium),  substitute  for  Mr. 
C.  Mertens);  Mr.  R.  Tayerle  (Czecho-Slovakia) ;  Mr.  J.  Teigen  (Nor¬ 
way).  '  . 

Secretary,  Dr.  W.  A.  Riddell  (Canada). 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

On  November  3  the  International  Labor  Conference  referred  to  a 
commission  of  30  members  the  consideration  of  the  second  question 
on  the  agenda  of  the  conference,  viz:  “Preventing  or  providing 
against  unemployment.” 

The  conference  also  referred  to  this  commission  the  investigation 
of  the  following  motion,  submitted  by  Mr.  Baldesi: , 

“Whereas  the  supreme  council  of  the  allied  and  associated  powers 
decided,  in  the  resolution  dated  August  29,  1919,  to  refer  the  resolu¬ 
tion  of  the  labor  commission,  dated  June  4, 1919,  to  the  international 
conference  at  Washington; 

“Whereas  the  organizing  committee  of  the  conference  has  not 
been  able  to  present  a  report  on  the  question  concerned ; 

“The  international  conference  decides  to  appoint  a  commission 
of  seven  members  to  study  and  report  on  the  subject  of  the  principle 
of  equality  of  treatment  on  a  reciprocal  basis  of  foreign  and  native 
workers.” 

In  view  of  the  magnitude  and  complexity  of  the  questions  which 
it  had  to  investigate,  the  commission,  on  the  motion  of  one  of  its 
members,  Mr.  di  Palma  Castiglioni,  was  divided  into  three  sub¬ 
commissions,  and  the  subjects  under  investigation,  especially  the 
proposals  contained  in  the  report  of  the  organizing  committee,  were 
distributed  as  follows: 

First  subcommittee — Questions  relating  to  systematic  observation 
and  prevention  of  unemployment. 

Second  subcommittee. — Questions  relating  to  protection  of  the 
unemployed,  notably  by  the  organization  of  employment  and 
insurance  offices  or  exchanges. 

Third  subcommittee. — Questions  relating  to  the  problem  of  migra¬ 
tion  in  connection  with  the  question  of  unemployment. 

Mr.  Max  Lazard,  who  was  elected  chairman  of  the  commission, 
was  also  appointed  chairman  of  the  first  subcommittee. 

Mr.  J.  F.  G.  Price  (representing  the  Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes, 
M.  P.),  was  elected  chairman  of  the  second  subcommittee,  and  the 
Viscount  de  Eza,  chairman  of  the  third. 

The  conclusions  arrived  at  in  each  of  these  subcommittees  have 
been  again  considered,  amended,  and  finally  adopted  with  practical 
unanimity  by  the  commission  sitting  in  full  meeting. 

As  the  result  of  these  discussions,  the  commission  has  the  honor 
to  present  the  following  proposals  to  the  conference: 

1.  A  draft  convention  divided  into  three  articles,  dealing,  respec¬ 
tively,  udth  statistics,  employment,  and  reciprocity  in  the  question 
of  insurance  against  unemployment. 


2.  A  draft  recommendation  consisting  of  four  articles,  two  of 
which  relate  to  the  employment  of  workers,  one  to  insurance  against 
unemployment,  and  one  to  public  works. 

3.  Four  resolutions  addressed  to  the  governing  body  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office. 

4.  A  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  in  the  treatment  of  foreign 
workers  in  all  matters  relating  to  the  protection  of  labor. 

This  second  draft  convention  is  the  result  of  investigations  made 
by  the  commission  on  the  subject  of  the  motion  submitted  by  Mr. 
Baldesi.  As  it  has  reference  to  an  entirely  different  question  from 
that  of  preventing  or  providing  against  unemployment,  it  should 
not  be  confused  with  the  first-mentioned  draft  convention.  Strictly, 
it  might  have  been  regarded  as  desirable  to  devote  a  separate 
report  to  the  subject,  but  the  commission  considered  it  better  to 
give,  in  a  single  document,  a  complete  view  of  all  the  proposals 
which  it  wished  to  submit  to  the  plenary  conference. 

The  text  of  these  four  drafts  is  reproduced  below  in  the  order  in 
which  these  drafts  are  enumerated  above.  In  the  commentary 
which  we  consider  it  our  duty  to  present  to  the  conference,  it  seems 
preferable  to  unite  these  various  proposals,  not  according  to  their 
legal  character,  but  according  to  the  subject  with  which  they  are 
connected.  Thus  in  the  following  six  chapters  there  are  briefly 
considered  the  questions  of — 

1.  The  collection  and  publication  of  information. 

2.  Employment  exchanges. 

3.  Insurance  against  unemployment. 

4.  The  distribution  of  public  works. 

5.  Protection  for  unemployed  foreign  workers. 

6.  Reciprocity  in  the  treatment  of  foreign  workers. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Collection  and  Publication  of  Information. 

Under  this  heading  the  commission  submits  a  draft  convention 
and  a  draft  resolution  respectively  worded  as  follows: 

draft  convention  no.  i. 

All  information  concerning  unemployment,  including  all  available  statistics  ana 
information  on  measures  taken  or  to  be  taken  to  reduce  unemployment  to  a  minimum 
shall  be  communicated  by  the  States  having  ratified  or  acceded  to  this  convention  to 
the  International  Labor  Office,  at  intervals  as  short  as  possible  and  not  exceeding 
three  months.  The  information,  when  practically  available,  shall  be  furnished  to  the 
International  Labor  Office  within  three  months  after  the  end  of  the  period  to  which 
it  relates. 

DRAFT  RESOLUTION  NO.  1. 

Resolved,  That  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  be  invited  to 
form  an  international  commission  empowered  to  formulate  recommendations  upon 
the  best  methods  to  be  adopted  in  each  State  for  collecting  and  publishing  all  infor¬ 
mation  relative  to  the  problem  of  unemployment,  in  such  form  and  for  such  periods 
of  time  as  may  be  internationally  comparable. 

So  far  as  agricultural  unemployment  is  particularly  concerned  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  come  to  an  understanding  with  the  International  Institute  of  Agri¬ 
culture  at  Rome,  in  order  that  the  latter  may  regularly  transmit  the  information 
collected  by  the  Institute  relative  to  the  aforesaid  unemployment. 

COMMENTS. 

The  two  texts  quoted  above  require  only  brief  comment.  They 
were  both  adopted  unanimously.  In  regard  to  the  draft  convention, 
the  chief  concern  of  the  members  of  the  commission  was  that  the 
information  should  be  made  available  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
commission  does  not  believe  that  it  will  suffice  for  a  State  simply 
to  send  the  information  it  has  obtained  to  the  International  Labor 
Office;  it  believes  that  an  effort  must  be  made  to  expedite  the  col¬ 
lection  and  forwarding  of  such  information.  Hence  the  provision  in 
the  last  paragraph  of  the  draft  convention. 

With  regard  to  the  draft  resolution,  and  also  to  the  draft  conven¬ 
tion,  various  members  wished  to  specify  further  the  nature  of  the 
information  to  be  obtained .  The  following  subjects  were  considered : 

(a)  Supply  and  demand  with  regard  to  the  various  classes  of 
merchandise. 

( b )  Data  as  to  general  economic  activity. 

(c)  Movement  of  migrations. 


APPENDIX 


235 


The  commission  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  be  better  not  to 
specify  particular  subjects  at  the  present  time,  and  to  refer  to  the 
international  commission,  the  organization  of  which  is  requested, 
the  question  of  specifying  the  necessary  information  to  be  obtained. 
The  only  point  on  which  the  commission  offers  any  directions  to 
the  international  commission  is  that  of  the  relations  to  be  established 
between  the  International  Labor  Office  and  the  International  Insti¬ 
tute  of  Agriculture  at  Rome,  in  regard  to  agricultural  unemployment. 

CHAPTER  n. 

Employment  Exchanges. 

The  proposals  submitted  are  a  draft  convention  and  two  draft 
recommendations. 

DRAFT  CONVENTION  NO.  2. 

The  States  ratifying  the  present  convention  or  acceding  thereto  shall  establish  in 
their  respective  countries  a  system  of  free  public  employment  agencies  under  the 
control  of  a  central  authority.  Committees  which  shall  include  representatives  of 
employers  and  representatives  of  the  workers  shall  be  appointed  to  advise  on  matters 
concerning  the  carrying  on  of  the  work  of  such  agencies.  In  States  where  both 
public  and  private  free  employment  agencies  engage  in  the  work  of  finding  employ¬ 
ment  for  the  unemployed,  such  States  shall  take  measures  to  coordinate  the  operations 
of  any  or  all  such  agencies  on  a  national  scale.  The  operation  of  the  several  national 
systems  shall  be  coordinated  by  the  International  Labor  Office  in  agreement  with 
the  States  concerned. 

DRAFT  RECOMMENDATION  NO.  1. 

The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  that  each  State  member  of  the 
permanent  organization  take  measures  to  prohibit  the  establishment  of  employment 
agencies  which  charge  fees  or  which  carry  on  the  business  of  an  employment  agency 
for  profit.  As  regards  the  States  in  which  agencies  of  this  nature  already'  exist,  the 
conference  recommends: 

That  these  agencies  shall  operate  only  under  licenses  granted  by  the  State,  and 
that  all  practicable  measures  shall  be  taken  to  abolish  such  agencies  as  soon  as  possible. 

DRAFT  RECOMMENDATION  NO.  2. 

The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  to  the  States  members  of  the 
permanent  organization  that  the  recruiting  of  bodies  of  workers  in  one  of  these  States 
with  a  view  to  their  employment  in  another  such  State  should  not  be  permitted 
except  by  mutual  agreement  between  the  countries  interested  and  after  consulta¬ 
tion  with  employers  and  workers  in  each  country'  in  the  industries  concerned. 

COMMENTS. 

The  draft  convention,  which  closely  follows  a  practice  which  has 
been  in  operation  in  many  countries  for  several  years  in  connection 
with  finding  employment  for  workers,  does  not  call  for  any  remarks. 
As  regards  the  first  draft  recommendation,  it  is  without  doubt  well 
to  point  out  that  the  wording  adopted  is  in  no  wise  directed  at  the 
newspapers  or  journals  which  print  in  their  advertising  columns 
notices  of  situations  vacant  or  situations  wanted.  If  the  wording 
adopted  should  be  insufficiently  clear  in  this  respect,  it  would  be 
desirable  for  the  editorial  committee  to  correct  it. 

A  recommendation  proposing  to  grant  to  workers,  placed  in  situa¬ 
tions  at  a  distance  from  their  homes  by  the  public  employment  ex¬ 
changes,  the  right  to  travel  at  reduced  rates,  a  recommendation 
which  was  proposed  by  subcommittee  No.  2,  was  not  accepted,  as  it 
did  not  appear  to  be  a  matter  of  a  nature  which  would  warrant 
making  any  representations  to  the  different  States. 

It  is  interesting  to  point  out  that  the  three  texts  referring  to  em¬ 
ployment  agencies,  including  the  version  of  the  second  recommenda¬ 
tion,  were  unanimously  agreed  upon  by  the  members  present.  An 
illuminating  discussion  permitted  a  conciliation  of  the  different 
points  of  view  of  those  countries  which  in  general  offer  labor  and 
those  which  in  general  call  for  it. 

CHAPTER  III. 

Insurance  Against  Unemployment. 

The  proposals  made  are  a  draft  convention,  a  draft  recommenda¬ 
tion,  and  a  draft  resolution. 

DRAFT  CONVENTION  NO.  3. 

The  States  ratifying  the  present  convention  or  acceding  thereto  which  have  estab¬ 
lished  systems  of  unemployment  insurance  shall,  upon  terms  being  agreed  between 
the  States  concerned,  make  arrangements  whereby  workers  belonging  to  one  such 
State  and  employed  in  another  such  State  shall  be  admitted  to  the  same  rates  of 
benefit  of  such  insurance  as  those  established  for  the  workers  of  the  latter  State. 


DRAFT  RECOMMENDATION  NO.  3. 

The  conference  recommends,  as  a  method  ofdealing  with  unemployment,  thateaeh 
State  member  of  the  permanent  organization  shall  take  steps  to  establish  an  effective 
system  of  unemployment  insurance,  either  through  a  system  operated  by  the  State  or 
through  a  system  of  subventions  or  grants  by  the  State  to  associations  whose  rules 
provide  for  the  payment  of  benefits  to  unemployed  workers  who  are  members  of 
such  associations. 

DRAFT  RESOLUTION  NO.  2. 

Resolved,  That  the  question  of  embodying  a  provision  to  the  effect  of  the  above 
recommendation  in  a  convention  on  unemployment  be  placed  on  the  agenda  of  the 
next  meeting  of  the  conference. 

COMMENTS. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  draft  convention  deals  with  only  one  of 
the  aspects  of  the  insurance  problem,  viz,  the  question  of  securing 
a  certain  reciprocity  of  treatment  for  the  benefit  of  workers  who  are 
the  subjects  of  one  State  but  working  in  another  State,  both  of  which 
States  have  established  unemployment  insurance  in  one  form  or 
another. 

In  the  final  version  adopted,  the  commission  sought  to  conciliate 
two  ideas  to  which  various  members  adhered  in  equal  measure. 
On  one  hand,  the  idea  that  no  unjustifiable  discrimination  ought 
to  be  practiced  toward  foreign  workers  with  regard  to  unemployment 
insurance,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  idea  that  the  details  of  the 
system  to  be  established  should  be  fixed  by  the  States  concerned  by 
means  of  special  conventions.  The  version  presented  was  unani¬ 
mously  adopted  by  the  commission.  This  fact  is  all  the  more  inter¬ 
esting  to  point  out,  as  strong  opposition  was  at  first  manifested  by 
some  representatives,  who  feared  that  the  commission  would  accept 
no  difference  in  treatment  between  foreign  and  native  workers. 
The  wording  finally  adopted  would  appear  to  afford  a  solution  of 
a  problem,  not  the  least  difficult  of  those  with  which  the  commis¬ 
sion  had  to  deal. 

The  draft  recommendation  views  the  problem  of  unemployment 
insurance  in  its  general  aspect.  The  commission  was  almost  unani¬ 
mous  in  thinking  that  it  was  necessary,  without  loss  of  time,  to  take 
measures  tending  to  hasten,  in  all  the  chief  industrial  countries,  the 
introduction  of  an  effective  system  of  unemployment  insurance. 
As,  on  the  other  hand,  it  did  not  seem  possible  at  the  present  moment 
to  choose  between  the  English  system  and  the  type  known  as  the 
Ghent  system,  the  commission  did  not  consider  that  it  could  go 
further  than  a  draft  recommendation  that  one  or  other  of  these  sys¬ 
tems  should  be  adopted. 

It  was  decided,  however,  that  the  subject  ought  not  to  be  lost  sight 
of  and  that  it  was  important  to  arrive  as  quickly  as  possible  at  a 
system  of  international  obligations.  For  these  reasons  it  was  con¬ 
sidered  desirable  to  bring  to  the  notice  of  the  conference  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  changing  the  aforesaid  recommendation  into  a  convention. 
That  would  be  the  task  of  a  later  session  of  the  conference,  which 
would  be  better  informed  on  the  respective  advantages  of  the  two 
systems,  since,  as  a  result  of  the  recommendation  here  presented, 
they  would  already  have  given  rise  to  a  wider  application  in  the 
various  States. 

The  commission  desires  to  point  out  that  the  delegations  from 
Argentina,  Norway,  and  Sweden,  which  had  no  representative  on 
the  commission,  have  offered  interesting  suggestions  which  were 
found  to  coincide  with  the  views  of  the  commission  itself. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Work  Undertaken  eor  Public  Authorities. 

The  proposal  which  the  commission  presents  under  this  heading 
is  a  recommendation  thus  drawn  up: 

DRAFT  RECOMMENDATION  NO.  4. 

The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  that  each  State  member  of  the 
permanent  organization  adopt  measures  with  a  view  to  coordinating  the  execution 
of  work  undertaken  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  States  and  by  public  authorities,  with  a 
view  to  reserving  as  far  as  practicable  the  work  in  question  for  periods  of  unemploy¬ 
ment  and  for  the  districts  particularly  affected  by  such  unemployment. 


236 


APPENDIX 


COMMENTS. 

It  mil  be  noticed  that  this  recommendation  merely  suggests 
some  difference  in  wording  from  the  similar  recommendation  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  Organizing  Committee.  The  principle  involved  was 
unanimously  approved  and  the  commission  only  sought  to  bring 
out  the  meaning  more  exactly  than  was  done  in  the  original  draft. 

As  regards  the  above  recommendation,  the  reporter  considers  it 
necessary  to  point  out  the  considerable  effort  which  the  first  sub¬ 
committee  made  to  arrive  more  definitely  at  the  causes  of  unem¬ 
ployment  and  to  find  other  preventive  measures  to  oppose  to  it. 
No  idea  expressed  by  any  member  of  the  committee  was  rejected 
a  priori. 

One  of  the  members  of  the  committee,  Mr.  Baldesi,  supported 
by  Mr.  Baroni,  particularly  emphasized  the  necessity  of  obtaining 
a  better  distribution  of  raw  materials  and  a  regulation  of  the  ocean 
freight  rates  applied  to  these  materials.  Mr.  Baldesi,  recognizing 
that  the  International  Labor  Conference  could  not  take  cognizance 
of  the  question,  requested  that  it  should  be  pointed  out  to  the 
executive  council  of  the  League  of  Nations.  The  committee  did 
not  consider  that  it  could  follow  Mr.  Baldesi  on  this  ground,  and  he 
has  accordingly  presented  a  minority  report  on  the  subject  to  the 
conference. 

Further  proposals  were  made  by  several  members  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  in  relation  to  measures  which  it  was  suggested  might  be 
taken  with  a  Anew  to  preventing  unemployment.  As,  however,  no 
definite  recommendation  could  be  formulated  on  these  proposals 
it  is  not  considered  necessary  to  refer  to  them  in  detail. 

Altogether,  the  first  subcommittee  was  brought  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  was  particularly  difficult,  taking  into  account  the  deep  and 
complex  causes  of  the  phenomenon  of  unemployment,  to  find  pre¬ 
ventive  remedies  therefor.  It  is  all  the  more  important  to  pursue 
and  to  intensify  the  scientific  study  of  the  phenomenon,  and  we 
can  not  exaggerate  the  importance  of  the  task  which  will  be  incum¬ 
bent  in  this  direction  upon  the  International  Labor  Office  if  the 
draft  convention  proposed  on  this  question  by  the  commission  is 
finally  ratified  by  the  various  Governments. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Protection  op  Unemployed  Foreign  Workers. 

The  proposals  submitted  for  the  approval  of  the  conference  are 
the  following: 

DRAFT  RESOLUTION  NO.  3. 

It  is  resolved  That,  in  connection  with  the  problem  of  unemployment,  a  special  sec¬ 
tion  shall  be  created  in  the  International  Labor  Office,  to  be  specially  charged  with 
the  consideration  of  all  questions  concerning  the  migration  of  workers  and  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  foreign  wage  earners. 

DRAFT  RESOLUTION  NO.  4. 

It  is  resolved  That  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  shall 
appoint  an  international  commission,  which,  while  giving  due  regard  to  the  sov¬ 
ereign  rights  of  each  State,  shall  consider  and  report  what  measures  can  be  adopted  to 
regulate  the  migration  of  workers  out  of  their  own  States  and  to  protect  the 
interests  of  wage  earners  residing  in  States  other  than  their  own,  such  commission 
to  present  its  report  at  the  meeting  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  in  1920. 

COMMENTS. 

The  proposals  presented  to  the  International  Conference  follow 
rather  closely,  as  will  be  seen,  the  one  which  the  Organizing  Com¬ 
mittee  has  prepared.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  resolution 
concerning  the  creation  of  an  international  commission  is  formulated 
in  rather  more  precise  terms  than  the  original  resolution,  and  that  a 
second  resolution  is  taken  calling  for  the  immediate  creation  of  a 
special  section  to  take  in  hand  all  questions  that  concern  the  migra¬ 
tion  of  workers  in  relation  to  unemployment. 

The  reporter  must  point  out  the  important  discussions  which  took 
place  on  this  subject  within  the  third  subcommittee.  The  sub¬ 
committee  was  of  opinion  that  a  recommendation  might  now  be 
formulated  tending  to  invest  the  International  Labor  Office  with 


certain  missions  of  a  practical  nature  for  the  protection  of  workers 
on  the  point  of  going  in  search  of  work  in  another  country  than  their 
own.  It  seemed  particularly  desirable  to  the  subcommittee  that 
the  International  Labor  Office  should  be  charged,  by  the  common 
consent  of  the  States  interested,  with  assuring  the  protection  of 
emigrants  in  cases  where  the  latter  do  not  enjoy  effective  national 
protection. 

The  needs  of  the  situation  seem  to  demand  that  persons  desirous 
of  emigrating  shall  be  informed  impartially  and  honestly  of  the 
existing  laws  and  regulations  as  regards  immigration  in  the  countries 
to  which  these  persons  desire  to  repair;  that  they  shall  be  informed 
of  the  situation  of  the  labor  market  in  these  countries;  and  that 
they  shall  be  helped  to  avoid  useless  and  dangerous  changes  of 
residence. 

Likewise  in  countries  of  transit  the  emigrants  of  certain  nationali¬ 
ties  are  left  without  any  protection  and  it  would  seem  extremely 
desirable,  both  in  their  own  interests  and  in  those  of  the  country 
through  which  they  pass,  that  they  should  enjoy  a  certain  amount 
of  supervision  and  at  the  same  time  a  certain  protection. 

Finally,  in  the  countries  of  immigration  it  would  appear  to  be 
equitable  to  do  away  with  the  difference  in  treatment  which  exists 
between  foreigners  belonging  to  a  country  which  has  well -organized 
consular  protection  and  those  who  do  not  enjoy  such  protection. 
Here  again,  the  intervention  of  a  representative  of  an  international 
system  might  be  justified  and  would  seem  perfectly  compatible  with 
the  legitimate  susceptibilities  of  the  different  States. 

The  commission  did  not  consider  that  it  could  at  present  formulate 
precise  recommendations  on  these  lines.  It  would  desire,  however, 
that  the  International  Conference,  by  approving  the  present  report, 
should  point  out  the  importance  of  this  kind  of  question  to  the  inter¬ 
national  commission  whose  creation  is  requested. 

The  Greek  Government  delegate  likewise  obtained  the  commis¬ 
sion’s  approval  of  a  desire  similar  to  the  suggestions  indicated  above 
and  tending  to  require  the  proposed  section  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  to  study  not  only  the  question  of  the  regulation  of  migra¬ 
tion  but  also  all  the  measures  necessary  for  assuring  effective  protec¬ 
tion  to  emigrants  and  for  sheltering  them  from  the  numerous  forms  of 
exploitation,  such  as  the  “padrone”  system  or  the  white-slave  trade, 
to  which  they  are  only  too  frequently  exposed. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Reciprocity  of  Treatment  of  Foreign  Workers. 

The  commission  makes  the  following  proposal  in  regard  to  the  ques¬ 
tion  raised  by  the  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi: 

DRAFT  CONVENTION  NO.  4. 

The  States  ratifying  this  convention  or  acceeding  to  it  shall  reciprocally  admit  to 
the  benefits  of  the  laws  and  regulations  having  regard  to  labor  protection,  as  well  as 
the  right  of  lawful  organization,  the  workers  belonging  to  one  of  these  States  and 
employed  in  another,  together  with  their  families. 

COMMENTS. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  commission  submits  a  draft  convention  on 
this  difficult  question  of  the  reciprocity  of  workers’  rights.  On  the 
final  division  only  one  vote  was  cast  in  opposition  to  this  draft.  In 
other  words,  the  commission  was  practically  unanimous  that  on  the 
basis  of  reciprocity,  foreign  workers  should  enjoy  the  same  protec¬ 
tion  as  native  workers. 

It  is  probable  that,  with  the  gradual  progress  which  may  be  an¬ 
ticipated,  wider  and  wider  application  will  be  made  of  articles  23, 
paragraph  (a)  and  427,  paragraph  (c)  of  the  Versailles  treaty.  The 
commission  recommends  that  the  conference  now  adopt  the  draft 
convention  on  reciprocity  of  treatment,  a  draft  which  the  reporters 
take  occasion  to  recall,  roused  no  opposition  in  the  commission  that 
could  not  be  overcome.  If  this  draft  convention  receives  the  neces¬ 
sary  majority,  notable  progress  toward  the  ideal  upheld  by  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  a  permanent  labor  organization  will  certainly  have  been 
accomplished. 


APPENDIX 


237 


The  draft  conventions,  recommendations,  and  resolutions  sub¬ 
mitted  in  conformity  to  the  above  report  to  the  plenary  conference 
are  reproduced  hereunder,  classified  according  to  their  legal  char¬ 
acter. 

(Signed)  Max  Lazard, 

Chairman. 

Appendix  A. 

I.  DRAFT  CONVENTION  ON  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

Article  1. 

All  information  concerning  unemployment,  including  all  avail¬ 
able  statistics  and  information  on  measures  taken  or  to  be  taken  to 
reduce  unemployment  to  a  minimum,  shall  be  communicated  by 
the  States  having  ratified  or  acceded  to  this  convention  to  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office,  at  intervals  as  short  as  possible  and  not  exceed¬ 
ing  three  months.  The  information  where  practically  available 
shall  be  furnished  to  the  International  Labor  Office  within  three 
months  from  the  end  of  the  period  to  which  it  relates. 

Article  2. 

The  States  ratifying  this  convention  or  acceding  thereto  shall  estab¬ 
lish,  in  their  respective  countries,  a  system  of  free  public  employ¬ 
ment  agencies  under  the  control  of  a  central  authority.  Committees, 
which  shall  include  representatives  of  employers  and  representatives 
of  workers,  shall  be  appointed  to  advise  on  matters  concerning  the 
carrying  on  of  these  agencies.  In  States  in  which  both  public  and 
private  free  employment  agencies  engage  in  the  work  of  -finding 
employment  for  the  unemployed,  such  States  shall  take  steps  to 
coordinate  the  operations  of  any  or  all  such  agencies  on  a  national 
scale. 

The  operation  of  the  various  national  systems  shall  be  coordinated 
by  the  International  Labor  Office,  in  agreement  with  the  States 
concerned. 

Article  3. 

The  States  ratifying  this  convention  or  acceding  thereto  which 
have  established  systems  of  insurance  against  unemployment  shall, 
upon  terms  being  agreed  upon  between  the  States  concerned,  make 
arrangements  whereby  workers  belonging  to  one  such  State  and 
working  in  another  such  State  shall  be  admitted  to  the  same  rates 
of  benefit  of  such  insurance  as  those  established  for  the  workers  of 
the  latter  State. 

II.  DRAFT  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

I.  The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  that  each 
State  which  is  a  member  of  the  permanent  organization  take  meas¬ 
ures  to  prohibit  the  establishment  of  employment  agencies  which 
charge  fees  or  which  carry  on  the  business  of  an  employment  agency 
for  profit.  In  States  where  such  agencies  already  exist  the  confer¬ 
ence  recommends  that  such  agencies  shall  operate  only  under 
licenses  granted  by  the  State,  and  that  all  practicable  measures  shall 
be  taken  to  abolish  such  agencies  as  soon  as  possible. 

II.  The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  to  the 
States  members  of  the  permanent  organization  that  the  recruiting  of 
bodies  of  workers  in  one  of  these  States  with  a  view  to  their  employ¬ 
ment  in  another  such  State  should  not  be  permitted  except  by 
mutual  agreement  between  the  countries  concerned  and  after  consul¬ 
tation  with  employers  and  workers  in  each  country  in  the  industries 
concerned. 

III.  The  conference  recommends,  as  a  method  of  dealing  with 
unemployment,  that  each  State  member  of  the  permanent  organiza¬ 
tion  shall  take  steps  to  establish  an  effective  system  of  unemploy¬ 
ment  insurance,  either  through  a  system  worked  by  the  State  or 
through  a  system  of  subventions  or  grants  by  the  State  to  associa¬ 
tions,  the  rules  of  which  provide  for  the  payment  of  benefits  to  un¬ 
employed  workers  who  are  members  of  such  associations. 


IV.  The  International  Labor  Conference  recommends  that  each 
State  member  of  the  permanent  organization  shall  take  measures 
with  a  view  to  coordinating  the  execution  of  work  undertaken  by 
or  on  behalf  of  the  States  and  by  public  authorities  with  a  view  to 
reserving  as  far  as  practicable  the  work  in  question  for  periods  of 
unemployment  and  for  districts  most  affected  by  such  unemploy¬ 
ment. 

III.  DRAFT  RESOLUTIONS. 

I.  Resolved  that  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor 
Office  be  invited  to  form  an  international  commission  empowered  to 
formulate  recommendations  upon  the  best  methods  to  be  adopted 
in  each  State  for  collecting  and  publishing  all  information  relative 
to  the  problem  of  unemployment,  in  such  form  and  for  such  periods 
of  time  as  may  be  internationally  comparable. 

So  far  as  agricultural  unemployment  is  particularly  concerned,  the 
International  Labor  Office  shall  come  to  an  understanding  with  the 
International  Institute  of  Agriculture  at  Rome,  in  order  that  the  lat¬ 
ter  may  regularly  transmit  the  information  collected  by  the  institute 
relative  to  the  aforesaid  unemployment. 

II.  Resolved  that  the  question  of  embodying  a  provision  to  the 
effect  of  Recommendation  No.  3  in  a  convention  on  unemploy¬ 
ment  be  placed  upon  the  agenda  for  the  next  session  of  the  confer¬ 
ence. 

III.  Resolved  that  in  connection  with  the  problem  of  unemploy¬ 
ment,  a  special  section  of  the  International  Labor  Office  shall  be 
established  to  be  especially  charged  with  the  consideration  of  all 
questions  concerning  the  migration  of  workers  and  the  situation  of 
foreign  wage  earners. 

IV.  Resolved  that  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor 
Office  shall  appoint  an  international  commission,  which,  while  giving 
due  regard  to  the  sovereign  rights  of  each  State,  shall  consider  and 
report  what  measures  can  be  adopted  to  regulate  the  migration  of 
workers  out  of  their  own  States  and  to  protect  the  interests  of  wage 
earners  residing  in  a  State  other  than  their  own,  such  commission  to 
present  its  report  at  the  meeting  of  the  International  Conference  in 
1920. 

Appendix  B. 

DRAFT  CONVENTION  ON  RECIPROCITY  OF  TREATMENT 
OF  FOREIGN  WORKERS. 

The  States  ratifying  this  convention  or  acceding  to  it  shall  recip¬ 
rocally  admit  to  the  benefit  of  the  laws  and  regulations  having  regard 
to  labor  protection,  as  well  as  the  right  of  lawful  organization,  the 
workers  belonging  to  one  of  these  States  and  employed  in  another, 
together  with  their  families. 


MINORITY  REPORT  ON  THE  MOTION  OFFERED  BY  MR.  BALDESI, 
ITALIAN  WORKERS’  DELEGATE,  RELATIVE  TO  THE  EQUITABLE 
DISTRIBUTION  OF  RAW  MATERIALS  AS  A  MEANS  OF  PRE¬ 
VENTING  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

Your  subcommittee  appointed  to  study  the  means  of  preventing 
or  reducing  industrial  unemployment  decided  against  Mr.  Baldesi’s 
motion  that,  as  the  lack  of  raw  materials  for  industry  is  a  frequent 
and  important  cause  of  unemployment,  the  League  of  Nations  should 
be  asked  to  study  the  question  of  their  equitable  distribution.  The 
subcommittee  decided  by  a  majority  vote  that  it  was  not  competent 
to  express  an  opinion  on  such  a  subject,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not 
authorized  to  deal  with  economic  problems  that  have  a  political 
character. 

The  minority  can  not  accept  this  view  of  the  case,  nor  does  it 
accept  the  opinion  likewise  expressed  that  no  practical  steps  can  be 
taken  to  improve  the  distribution  of  raw  materials  between  the 
several  countries.  The  minority  therefore  wishes  to  place  its  views 
before  the  conference. 

There  has  been  much  talk,  the  world  over,  about  after-war  indus¬ 
trial  reconstruction  as  affording  a  means  of  avoiding  in  the  future 


238 


APPENDIX 


the  drawbacks  experienced  in  the  past,  drawbacks  due,  in  no  small 
measure,  to  the  varying  degree  of  development  attained  in  the 
several  countries,  but  to  a  yet  greater  degree  to  natural  inequalities 
by  which  some  countries  possess  great  wealth  in  the  form  of  mineral 
and  other  natural  resources  while  other  countries  are  entirely  devoid 
of  these. 

Before  the  war  we  witnessed  periodical  crises  due  to  overproduc¬ 
tion,  entailing  great  distress  among  the  working  classes,  despite  the 
abundance  of  products.  Since  the  war  we  have  experienced  in 
certain  countries  the  opposite  phenomenon  of  underproduction  due 
to  scarcity  of  the  raw  materials  of  industry,  leading  to  like  results, 
i.  e.,  serious  unemployment  accompanied  by  distress  (somewhat 
alleviated  by  relief  measures  taken  by  Governments,  municipalities, 
and  by  private  and  cooperative  efforts)  consequent  on  the  closing 
down  of  factories  or  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  hands  they 
employ. 

For  this  reason  the  minority  considers  it  of  great  importance  that 
the  League  of  Nations  be  asked  to  study  the  question  of  the  proper 
distribution  of  raw  materials  so  as  to  avoid  the  complete  economic 
subjection  of  some  countries  to  others  which  possess  those  raw 
materials. 

The  minority  is  well  aware  that  such  a  question  can  not  be  easily 
solved;  it  demands  the  most  thorough  and  careful  study  before  steps 
be  taken  which,  if  unsuccessful,  would  prejudice  the  case,  as  ill- 
advised  practical  action  would  be  used  as  a  reason  for  ruling  out  all 
further  action  in  that  direction,  no  matter  how  sound  the  case  for  such 
further  action  might  be.  For  this  reason  the  minority  asks  the  con¬ 
ference  to  call  the  attention  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  the  whole 
subject,  so  that  the  necessary  studies  may  be  made. 

The  majority  on  the  subcommittee  was  of  opinion  that  those 
countries  which  possess  the  raw  materials  under  consideration 
might  resent  any  such  suggestion,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  inter¬ 
fere  with  their  absolute  right  to  dispose  freely  of  what  belongs  to 
them.  We  might  reply  to  this  objection  that  labor  also  may  be 
considered  as  doubly  entitled  to  respect,  as  being  doubly  the  prop¬ 
erty,  first,  of  the  laborer  himself  and,  secondly,  of  the  country  to 
which  he  belongs.  Yet  this  has  not  prevented  the  countries  here 
represented  from  desiring  to  see  some  international  regulation  of 
the  conditions  of  human  labor,  without  feeling  that  in  so  doing  they 
are  in  any  sense  humiliated  or  that  their  rights  are  thereby  in¬ 
fringed  on.  Moreover,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  countries 
may  yet  possess  undiscovered  resources,  and  that  methods  may  be 
discovered  which  will  confer  value  on  raw  materials  hitherto  dis¬ 
regarded  even  by  those  who  owned  them,  and  which  would  then 
place  in  the  hands  of  those  countries  a  means  of  turning  the  tables. 
The  case  of  sulphurous  iron  ore,  which  has  become  of  value  since 
the  application  of  the  Martin  furnaces,  illustrates  the  changes  which 
time  may  bring  about  in  the  valuation  of  the  mineral  wealth  of  a 
country,  and  it  justifies  the  conclusion  that  those  who  now  possess 
in  abundance  the  raw  materials  which  the  world  needs  should  not 
feel  certain  that  a  time  may  not  come  when  they  in  their  turn 
will  stand  in  need  of  products  which  they  do  not  possess,  and  that 
they  may  not  thus  be  led  to  regret  the  adoption  of  a  narrowly 
selfish  policy  in  this  matter. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  generally  recognized  that  we  now  have  to 
face  problems  which  can  not  be  solved  by  simply  returning  to 
prewar  conditions,  but  which  call  for  bold  innovations,  and  it  can 
safely  be  said  that  there  is  no  greater  social  danger  than  that  of 
turning  a  deaf  ear  to  such  claims  and  rejecting  those  innovations 
which  present  conditions  call  for. 

Broadly  speaking,  we  have  on  the  one  hand  countries  possessing 
vast  quantities  of  raw  materials  awaiting  the  work  of  man  to  con¬ 
vert  them  to  profitable  use,  and  on  the  other  hand  we  have  nations 
with  abundant  supplies  of  labor  anxiously  seeking  for  those  same 
raw  materials  in  order  to  render  them  of  value  to  themselves  and 
others. 

Should  this  abundant  labor  be  forced  to  emigrate  to  those  coun¬ 
tries  where  the  raw  materials  are  to  be  found?  Or  would  it  not  be 


more  just  and  more  humane  to  make  such  raw  material  available  in 
those  countries  where  labor  abounds?  If  it  is  true  that  men  should 
be  afforded  the  opportunity  to  avoid  the  sorrows  of  exile  from  their 
native  countries,  and  that  they  are  better  and  more  valuable  citi¬ 
zens  the  more  they  are  attached  to  the  land  of  their  birth,  where 
they  have  grown  from  childhood  to  man’s  estate,  then  the  answer 
can  not  be  doubtful. 

If  this  point  of  view  meets  with  the  approval  of  the  majority  of 
the  delegates  to  this  conference,  then  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  the 
majority  of  the  subcommittee  to  call  the  attention  of  the  League  of 
Nations  to  the  proper  distribution  of  the  raw  materials  of  industry 
as  a  means  of  preventing  unemployment,  should  be  adopted. 

'  In  this  connection  the  minority  would  also  draw  the  attention  of 
the  conference  to  the  importance  of  the  question  of  ocean  carriage 
of  such  raw  materials,  for  excessively  high  and  more  especially  fluctu¬ 
ating  ocean  freight  rates  are  a  leading  cause  of  artificially  high  prices 
and  speculation  in  raw  material.  Here  again  is  a  great  and  impor¬ 
tant  question  properly  deserving  the  attention  and  study  of  the 
League  of  Nations. 

The  importance  of  this  factor  of  ocean  carriage  in  determining  the 
price  of  the  staples  was  powerfully  pointed  out  by  David  Lubin,  the 
founder  of  the  International  Institute  of  Agriculture  in  Rome  and 
delegate  of  the  United  States  to  that  institute.  He  brought  the 
matter  to  the  attention  of  the  American  Senate  and  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives,  which,  after  giving  several  hearings  on  the  matter  and 
after  full  discussion  in  the  House,  adopted  a  resolution  calling  on 
the  International  Institute  of  Agriculture  in  Rome  to  take  the 
initiative  in  calling  for  an  international  conference  to  consider  the 
advisability  of  formulating  a  convention  for  the  establishment  of  a 
permanent  international  commerce  commission  on  merchant  marine 
and  upon  rates  for  the  transport  of  goods  with  advisory  and  investi¬ 
gatory  powers. 

Upon  this  subject  the  minority  desires  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
conference  to  the  following  statements  which  were  made  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  in  the  course  of  a 
discussion  upon  this  question  (Cong.  Rec.,  Sept.  1,  1914,  p.  14571). 
On  that  occasion  one  of  the  members  taking  part  in  the  debate,  Mr. 
Alexander,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Merchant  Marine  and 
Fisheries,  made  the  following  statement:  “Mr.  Lubin  contends,  and 
with  great  force,  that  in  order  to  steady  the  world’s  price  .of  the 
staples  it  is  necessary  to  stabilize  the  freight  rates  on  the  staples, 
and  that  this  can  not  be  done  until  the  ocean  freight  rate  on  the 
commodity  from  the  seaboard  to  the  point  of  delivery  in  Europe 
or  South  America  or  elsewhere  in  our  oversea  trade  is  known  with 
reasonable  certainty.  *  *  * 

“  It  is  an  international  problem  which  can  only  be  solved  by 
international  agreement.”  Now  here  is  what  Congressman  Norton 
says  on  the  same  subject  (Cong.  Rec.,  Sept.  1,  1914,  p.  14575): 

“  *  *  *  For  all  ocean  rates  for  bulk  products  under  the  present 
methods  and  under  present  shipping  practice  are  subject  to  wide 
variations  without  notice  to  the  shipper  from  day  to  day  and  even 
from  hour  to  hour.  *  *  *  The  fact  that  ocean  carriage  on  staple 
farm  products  can  be  raised  or  lowered  at  a  moment’s  notice,  and  at 
the  whim  and  will  of  the  shipping  rings  and  combinations,  leaves 
room  for  tremendous  gambling  operations  on  grain  prices  and  levies 
each  year  heavy  tolls  on  both  the  producer  and  the  consumer.  *  *  * 
Because  this  condition  prevails  the  federated  shipping  interests  and 
other  gamblers  in  the  price  of  the  staples,  the  value  of  which  is  esti¬ 
mated  to  bo  a  hundred  billion  dollars  a  year,  and  which  represents 
the  foodstuffs  and  raw  materials  for  clothing  and  household  fur¬ 
nishings  of  all  the  people  of  all  the  world,  hold  the  power  to  dictate 
at  will  the  rise  and  fall  in  the  price  of  the  world’s  agricultural 
products.” 

It  is  for  the  reasons  stated  above  that  the  minority  proposes  (it 
being  granted  that  the  lack  of  raw  materials  necessary  to  industry 
is  in  many  countries  the  principal  cause  of  unemployment,  while 
in  other  countries  which  produce  such  raw  materials  unemployment 
is  caused  by  an  excess  of  production)  that  the  conference  call  the 


APPENDIX 


239 


attention  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  the  importance  which  a  just 
distribution  of  raw  materials  bears  to  the  prevention  of  unemploy¬ 
ment  and  the  opportunity  which  is  presented  for  establishing  a 
permanent  commission  to  assure  such  a  just  distribution  among  the 
different  countries  in  accordance  with  their  present  and  future 
industrial  needs. 

It  having  also  been  shown  that  the  irregularity  and  fluctuation 
of  the  rates  of  ocean  carriage  encourage  speculation  and  manipula¬ 
tion  of  prices,  the  minority  proposes  also  that  the  conference  draw 
the  attention  of  the  League  of  Nations  to  the  proposal  made  by  the 
United  States  Congress  in  resolution  No.  311  of  the  month  of  Sep¬ 
tember,  1914,  which  recommends  as  opportune  the  establishment 
of  a  permanent  international  commission  with  advisory  powers  for 
the  regulation  of  ocean  freight  rates. 

(Signed)  Gino  Baldesi, 

Reporter  for  the  minority. 


CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE  WITH  REGARD 

TO  THE  SECOND  POINT  ON  THE  AGENDA  OF  THE  CONFER¬ 
ENCE.' 

In  view  of  the  information  summarized  in  the  above  report  and 
of  the  expressed  opinions  of  the  Governments,  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  has  arrived  at  the  following  conclusions: 

Information  in  regard  to  unemployment  should  be  collected  and 
distributed  on  an  international  scale,  since  the  information  at 
present  available  is  not  adequate. 

Thus,  *  *  *  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that 
the  figures  giving  the  percentage  of  unemployed  in  the  trade 
unions  of  certain  countries  are  not  comparable.  They  cover  in  the 
different  countries  quite  different  classes  of  workers;  and  in  no 
country  are  the  figures  an  adequate  indication  of  the  extent  of  the 
problem.  Again,  in  regard  to  unemployment  of  a  seasonal  char¬ 
acter,  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  compare  even  the  building 
trades  of  more  than  a  few  countries. 

For  other  seasonal  trades  there  appear  to  be  no  adequate  figures 
for  comparison  between  any  two  countries;  and  the  consequence  is 
that  although  various  kinds  of  unemployment  are  recognized  to  be 
international  in  character,  both  because  they  appear  in  every  indus¬ 
trial  country  and  because  they  are  due  to  international  causes, 
nevertheless  it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  exact  and  statistical 
view  of  the  problem  on  an  international  scale. 

The  establishment  of  the  International  Labor  Office  and  the  pub¬ 
lication  by  it  of  information  in  regard  to  the  several  States  will 
naturally  promote  the  general  knowledge  of  the  situation;  but  with 
the  material  at  present  available  the  International  Labor  Office 
could  not  make  progress  in  the  study  of  the  problems.  The  com¬ 
parison  of  systems  and  the  improvement  of  methods  adopted  would 
be  easier,  if  there  were  an  agreed  system  of  collecting  and  publishing 
information  as  to  unemployment  to  be  used  by  the  several  States. 

The  information  which  is  desirable  is  broadly  of  the  following 
kinds:  there  should  be  forall  industrial  countries  statistics  giving  (1) 
the  wage-earning  population  defined  in  some  agreed  way;  (2)  the 
numbers  employed  at  certain  dates  in  each  industry,  distinguishing 
males,  females,  and  children  under  some  agreed  age;  (3)  the  member¬ 
ship  of  trade  unions  as  well  as  the  number  unemployed  and  the 
number  insured  in  them;  (4)  the  numbers  affected  by  strikes  or 
lockouts.  The  statistics  should  also  have  regard  to  employment 
offices,  showing  (1)  the  number  of  offices  actually  open,  distinguish¬ 
ing  kinds;  (2)  the  number  of  places  offered,  workers  registered  and 
places  filled.  Finally,  the  statistics  should  show,  in  regard  to  insu- 
ance  and  other  measures  of  relief,  (1)  the  number  and  kinds  of  insur¬ 
ance  funds;  (2)  the  amounts  expended;  (3)  the  numbers  insured, 
and  other  similar  information. 


•  Report  upon  unemployment,  prepared  by  the  organizing  committee  for  the  In¬ 
ternational  Labor  Conference,  Washington,  1919.  London,  pp.  112-117. 


It  is  recognized  that  the  unification  of  statistical  records  is  a  matter 
of  great  difficulty;  but  the  necessity  for  it  is  becoming  increasingly 
important,  not  only  as  regards  unemployment  but  as  regards  all 
industrial  problems.  Id  the  case  of  unemployment,  however,  it  is 
of  special  importance,  as  unless  some  such  step  is  taken,  no  adequate 
description  of  the  problem  can  be  obtained.  Moreover,  the  paucity 
of  the  existing  records  will  allow  a  coordinated  system  of  future 
statistics  to  be  compiled  with  less  disturbance  of  existing  methods 
and  records  than  would  be  the  case  in  other  fields.  The  committee 
is,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  coordination  of  these  statistics  is  of 
great  importance  because  of  the  light  which  it  may  throw  on  the 
problem  with  which  they  deal. 

Nonstatistical  information  is  also  necessary  and  should  be  collected 
on  an  agreed  system  on  an  international  scale.  This  information 
should  include  the  texts  of  laws  or  regulations  regarding  unemploy¬ 
ment,  draft  bills,  projets  de  loi,  etc. ;  particulars  ought  also  to  be  given 
of  voluntary  action  in  regard  to  the  prevention  or  relief  of  unem¬ 
ployment.  Information  as  to  any  sudden  change  likely  to  affect 
employment  should  be  conveyed  at  once  to  the  International  Labor 
Office;  for  example,  there  may  be  calamities  such  as  earthquakes 
and  other  unforeseen  events  involving  the  dislocation  of  industries 
on  which  employment  in  another  country  is  dependent. 

Further,  it  will  probably  be  necessary  that  some  arrangement 
should  be  made  as  to  the  time  at  which  the  information  should  be 
communicated  by  the  Governments  to  the  International  Labor 
Office.  An  exact  period  should  be  fixed,  in  order  that  the  informa¬ 
tion  from  the  several  States  may  be  comparable.  It  is  provided  in 
article  397  of  the  peace  treaty  that  direct  communication  shall  be 
established  between  the  Internationa]  Labor  Office  and  the  depart¬ 
ments  of  the  several  States  which  deal  with  questions  of  industry 
and  employment;  and  this  will  be  of  special  importance  in  regard 
to  unemployment. 

With  a  view  to  promoting  the  international  collection  of  informa¬ 
tion  and  its  coordination,  the  committee  submits  a  draft  clause,  which 
might  be  embodied  in  an  international  convention,  and  a  resolution 
suggesting  that  an  international  commission  sh.ould  be  set  up  to 
advise  on  the  best  method  of  collecting  such  information.  The 
committee  also  considers  that  there  should  be  agreements  between 
States  possessing  systems  of  unemployment  insurance  to  assure 
reciprocal  benefits  to  emigrant  workers. 

The  committee  considers  that  certain  aspects  of  the  migration  of 
workers  have  a  bearing  on  the  problem  of  unemployment,  but  that 
the  whole  subject  is  too  complex  for  immediate  treatment  by  inter¬ 
national  agreement.  They  accordingly  submit  a  resolution  for  the 
consideration  of  the  conference,  suggesting  that  an  international 
commission  should  examine  certain  portions  of  the  problem. 

One  further  measure  in  regard  to  preventive  methods  in  the 
treatment  of  unemployment  is  the  allocation  of  public  contracts. 
This  is  dealt  with  in  the  above  report;  and  although  it  is  not  yet 
practiced  on  any  large  scale  in  any  State,  it  is  suggested  that  it 
should  become  the  subject  of  a  recommendation  to  promote  such 
allocation  wherever  possible. 

The  committee  has  not  been  able  to  make  any  suggestions  as 
regards  the  modifications  which  may  be  desirable  in  the  case  of 
those  countries  whose  special  conditions  are  referred  to  in  article  405 
of  the  treaty,  as  at  the  time  when  this  report  was  printed  replies  had 
not  yet  been  received  from  the  most  important  Governments  likely 
to  be  concerned. 

The  committee  put  forward  for  the  consideration  of  the  conference 
the  following  draft  convention,  recommendation  and  resolutions: 

DRAFT  CONVENTION  ON  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

Article  1. 

All  information  regarding  unemployment  shall  be  communicated 
by  the  States  signatories  to  this  convention  every  three  months  to 
the  International  Labor  Office.  Such  information  shall  include 


240 


APPENDIX 


statistics  and  particulars  of  any  measures  taken  in  regard  to  unem¬ 
ployment 

Article  2. 

Each  State  signatory  to  this  convention  shall  coordinate  on  a 
national  scale  the  operations  of  the  various  agencies,  public  and 
private,  through  which  the  wage  earners  now  seek  employment. 

Article  3 

The  States  signatories  to  this  convention  which  have  established 
systems  of  unemployment  insurance  shall  make  arrangements 
whereby  workers  belonging  to  one  such  State  and  employed  in 
another  shall  be  admitted  to  the  benefits  of  such  insurance  upon 
terms  to  be  agreed  between  the  States  concerned. 

RECOMMENDATION. 

It  is  recommended  by  the  conference  of  the  International  Labor 
Organization  that  measures  shall  be  taken  by  each  State  signatory 
to  this  convention  to  promote  the  coordination  of  the  orders  for 
work  or  public  contracts  of  all  public  authorities  within  its  juris¬ 
diction  in  such  a  manner  that  the  said  work  or  contracts  may  be 
undertaken,  as  far  as  possible,  in  periods  of  serious  unemployment. 

RESOLUTIONS. 

I.  It  is  resolved,  That  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  be  instructed  to  appoint  an  international  commission 
to  consider  and  advise  on  the  best  method  of  collecting  and  pub¬ 
lishing  in  each  State  all  information  directly  relevant  to  the  problem 
of  unemployment. 

II.  It  is  resolved,  'That  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  appoint  an  international  commission  to  consider 
whether  any  measures  can  be  adopted  to  regulate  the  migration  of 
workers,  so  far  as  regards  the  conditions  of  their  employment. 

INFORMATION  WITH  REGARD  TO  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

The  committee  is  of  opinion,  after  reviewing  the  information 
supplied  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  problem  of  unemploy¬ 
ment  in  its  international  aspects,  that  more  information  is  needed. 
A  first  necessity  for  the  solution  of  the  problem  is  a  correct  diagnosis 
of  its  character,  but  this  is  hardly  possible  at  present.  There  is  no 
agreement  between  the  States  as  to  the  method  of  collecting  statis¬ 
tics  of  unemployment.  No  country  appears  to  have  an  exact 
knowledge  of  the  problem  within  its  own  frontiers,  and  the  inter¬ 
national  aspects  have  hardly  been  considered  hitherto.  For  the 
adoption,  however,  of  methods  of  preventing  unemployment  and  of 
providing  against  it  the  Governments  would  find  further  informa¬ 
tion  useful,  and  this  can  only  be  adequate  if  it  is  collected  and 
published  on  an  international  scale.  The  consideration  of  the 
method  of  collecting  information  would  naturally  be  one  of  the 
tasks  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  since  the  .publication  of 
information  is  already  recognized  in  the  treaty  of  peace  as  a  func¬ 
tion  of  this  office. 

The  committee,  therefore,  suggests  that  arrangements  should  be 
made  to  secure  the  coordination  and  extension  of  information  on 
the  subject  of  unemployment  and  its  communication  to  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office.  These  suggestions  are  dealt  with  more  fully 
at  the  conclusion  of  this  report. 

CONTROL  OF  EMPLOYMENT  EXCHANGES  BY  THE  STATE. 

It  is  evident  from  the  information  available  and  from  the  expressed 
opinions  of  some  Governments  that  the  established  systems  of 
employment  offices  have  not  been  as  effective  as  it  was  hoped  that 
they  would  be.  Information  as  to  the  conditions  of  work  or  as  to 
the  ability  of  the  applicant  is  essential  to  the  effective  working 
of  a  system  of  employment  offices,  but  such  information  is  often 
difficult  to  obtain.  This  tends  to  make  the  employers  and  the 
better  class  of  workers  distrustful  of  the  system. 


It  is  clear,  nevertheless,  from  the  information  furnished  that, 
even  allowing  for  all  limitations  to  the  possible  value  of  public 
employment  offices,  the  system  should  be  extended  in  every  coun¬ 
try  in  which  there  is  unemployment.  Each  State  or  large  district 
within  a  State  is  still  an  economic  unit  in  regard  to  the  supply  of 
labor,  except  in  regard  to  the  possibilities  of  migration.  The  nor¬ 
mal  movement  of  the  majority  of  workers  from  one  to  another 
employment  is  still  within  a  frontier,  and  therefore,  as  a  general 
rule,  the  organization  of  employment  offices  is  a  task  for  each  State 
acting  separately.  The  information  supplied  by  some  Governments, 
however,  and  their  expressed  opinions  indicate  that,  in  the  case  of 
workers  moving  to  countries  anxious  for  immigrant  labor,  it  should 
be  possible  to  establish  close  relations  between  the  public  employ¬ 
ment  offices  of  the  States  concerned.  Apart  from  this  no  interna¬ 
tional  administrative  action  appears  possible  with  regard  to  the 
movement  of  labor,  and  the  social  circumstances  in  the  different 
countries  are  so  different  that  no  one  system  can  be  shown  to  be 
best  for  all.  It  seems,  however,  to  be  generally  agreed  that  a  public 
system  is  better  than  private  registry  offices,  and  that  where  private 
registry  offices  exist  they  should  operate  only  under  a  license. 
Further,  it  appears  to  be  agreed  that  there  should  be  in  every  State 
some  central  State  supervision  of  the  whole  system  of  employment 
offices. 


PROPOSALS  OF  THE  ARGENTINE  DELEGATION  IN  THE  MATTER 
OF  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

The  Argentine  delegation  agrees  with  the  report  of  the  organizing 
committee  that  the  problem  of  unemployment  (1)  is  one  of  the 
most  serious,  and  (2)  difficult  of  solution,  and  that  (3)  the  infor¬ 
mation  supplied  to  the  Organizing  Committee  points  out  very 
apparent  deficiencies.  It  takes  this  occasion,  moreover,  to  make 
clear  the  thought  in  the  reply  of  the  Government  to  the  question¬ 
naire.  It  did  not  intend  to  state  that  the  problem  of  unemployment 
does  not  exist.  Argentina,  being  as  it  is,  a  fully  developed  indus¬ 
trial  country,  unemployment  does  exist.  What  it  wished  to  say  was 
(a)  that  the  problem  presents  itself  only  exceptionally  in  an  inten¬ 
sive  form,  and  (6)  that  the  form  in  which  it  presents  itself  is  not 
like  that  which  it  assumes  in  the  countries  of  continental  Europe. 
In  Argentina  the  problem  of  enforced  idleness  is,  above  all,  a 
question  of  distribution  of  the  working  population,  difficult  because 
of  the  extent  of  the  country.  However,  accepting  in  good  part 
the  standards  of  the  committee,  the  Argentine  delegation  begs  to 
differ  with  the  terms  of  the  draft  proposed  on  page  239.  It  believes, 
in  effect,  that  it  is  not  indispensable  to  defer  the  solution,  although 
partial,  of  the  matter;  and  it  affirms  that  there  naturally  exists  an 
unquestionable  advantage  in  suggesting  a  more  concrete  solution. 
The  importance  of  the  question  demands  it.  It  therefore  begs  to 
propose  the  following: 

DRAFT  CONVENTION. 

'  1.  The  associated  nations  agree  to  pass  legislation  for  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  national,  provincial,  or  municipal  bureaus,  whose 
object  is  to  bring  together  the  supply  and  demand  of  labor.  The 
services  of  these  will  be  absolutely  free. 

2.  They  agree  likewise  to  subsidize  the  labor  organizations  which 
render  free  employment  service  in  proportion  to  the  importance  of 
the  sendees  given. 

3.  The  same  legislation  shall  provide  for  the  abolition  of  fees  for 
the  sendees  of  those  agencies,  except  in  localities  where  there  are  no 
official  agencies. 

4.  The  associated  nations  which  have  up  to  the  present  time  no 
legislation  for  the  prevention  of  unemployment  agree  to  study  the 
problem  as  soon  as  possible  and  to  create  by  law  systems  which  pro¬ 
vide  for  assistance  to  the  unemployed,  whether  it  be  on  the  basis  of 
pecuniary  aid  to  the  labor  organizations  which  have  established  re¬ 
lief  funds  for  the  unemployed  or  on  the  basis  of  some  plan  of  social 


APPENDIX 


241 


insurance,  the  funds  for  which  may  consist  of  contributions  from 
workers,  employers,  and  the  State. 

The  reasons  which  form  the  basis  for  the  preceding  proposal 
are  readily  understood.  The  three  first  are  in  answer  to  the  proposal 
of  preventing,  as  far  as  possible,  enforced  unemployment  through 
the  action  of  the  public  employment  offices.  It  dees  not  seem  neces¬ 
sary  to  favor  exclusively  any  one  of  the  two  systems  prevailing  as 
present,  namely,  the  public  exchange  and  that  of  the  labor  organiza¬ 
tion;  and  on  the  contrary  everything  leads  one  to  believe  that  they 
can  exist  together.  The  expedient  thing  is  to  establish  the  principle 
by  which  the  State  should,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  lend  pecuniary 
aid  to  the  funds  which  supplement  the  labor  organizations,  reserving 
for  itself  the  task  of  coordination  between  the  supply  and  demand  of 
labor.  With  regard  to  the  agencies  which  are  not  free,  it  is  desirable 
to  secure  their  elimination  as  soon  as  possible.  The  motive  of  profit 
which  dominates  them  is  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the  workers. 
The  social  function  of  procuring  work  ought  not  to  give  rise  to  a 
profit-taking  business. 

The  last  proposition  embodies,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Argentine  de¬ 
legation,  the  most  adequate  means  within  the  present  industrial  or¬ 
ganization  of  tending  to  lessen  the  consequences  of  unemployment, 
when  this  occurs  in  spite  of  the  preventive  measures  indicated. 
Social  insurance  against  the  danger  of  unemployment  appears  a 
system  too  ambitious,  if  it  has  to  be  applied  to  all  kinds  of  workers. 
It  must  not  be  forgotten,  furthermore,  that  such  a  system  demands  a 
preliminary  period  of  development  of  social  legislation  which  not 
all  the  nations  have  yet  acquired.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  this  plan  there  was  put  that  of  the  “unemployment  funds” 
supplementary  to  the  labor  organizations  and  assisted  by  the  State. 
Without  doubt  this  system  is  easily  realized,  its  educative  value 
quite  apparent.  It  remains  for  each  country,  in  accordance  with  its 
resources,  to  fix  the  amount  of  its  contributions. 

(Signed)  Leonidas  Anastasi, 

Felipe  A.  Espil, 

Delegates  of  Argentina. 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  PROPOSED  BY  THE  ARGENTINE  GOVERN¬ 
MENT  DELEGATION  IN  THE  MATTER  OF  RECIPROCITY  OF 
TREATMENT  OF  FOREIGN  WORKERS. 

1.  Foreign  workers  residing  in  any  of  the  associated  countries 
shall  have  the  same  rights  and  obligations  under  workmen’s  com¬ 
pensation  laws  as  those  who  are  citizens  of  that  country. 

2.  The  rights  granted  by  the  respective  laws  to  the  heirs  or  de¬ 
pendents  of  the  victim  of  an  accident  shall  not  be  restricted  by 
reason  of  nationality  or  residence. 

STATEMENT  OF  MOTIVES. 

I.  In  submitting  this  draft  convention  to  the  consideration  of  the 
conference  we  are  convinced  that  the  subject  matter  of  the  pro¬ 
posal  is  well  within  the  purpose  and  scope  of  this  conference, 
although  at  first  sight  it  may  appear  that  it  is  only  a  subject  for 
national  and  not  for  international  action,  inasmuch  as  it  refers,  in 
part  at  least,  to  the  situation  of  foreign  subjects  or  citizens  residing 
in  one  of  the  associated  countries. 

In  this  respect  we  must  not  forget  the  strong  opposition  that  was 
aroused  in  this  country 1  against  the  original  draft  of  the  League  of 
Nations  because,  among  other  things,  it  was  feared  that  the  ques¬ 
tions  relative  to  foreign  immigrants  would  eventually  be  referred 
to  the  tribunal  of  the  League  of  Nations.  To  overcome  this  objec¬ 
tion.  in  the  final  drait  article  15  was  amended,  so  as  to  exclude 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  league  “*  *  *  a  matter  which  by 
international  law  is  solely  within  the  domestic  jurisdiction  of  that 
party.”  Then,  it  would  seem  natural  to  fear  that  the  matter  on 
which  we  are  endeavoring  to  legislate  might  be  included  within 
the  meaning  of  the  above  sentence,  as  it  refers  to  the  situation  of 

1  The  United  States  of  America. 


foreign  subjects  or  citizens  within  the  boundaries  of  one  of  the 
associated  countries,  and  it  might  seem  to  raise  questions  which 
might  be  included  within  the  provisions  of  articles  418  and  419  of 
the  treaty  of  peace.  But  there  is  really  no  ground  for  that  fear 
when  we  consider  that  paragraph  8  of  article  427  of  the  treaty  of 
peace  expressly  places  this  subject  among  the  international  matters 
with  which  the  treaty  itself  is  concerned,  when  it  declares  that 

The  standard  set  by  law  in  each  country  with  respect  to  the  condition  of  labor 
should  have  due  regard  to  the  equitable,  economic  treatment  of  all  workers  law¬ 
fully  resident  therein. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  might  mention  the  fact  that  the  United 
States — the  country  which  has  most  earnestly  defended  its  privi¬ 
leges  in  the  matter  of  immigration — is  one  of  the  countries  which 
has  most  liberally  recognized  in  its  State  legislation  this  condition 
of  equality  that  our  draft  convention  is  endeavoring  to  extend  to 
all  the  associated  nations.  (Bulletin  No.  240,  U.  S.  Department  of 
Labor,  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  Comparison  of  Workmen ’s  Com¬ 
pensation  Laws  of  the  United  States  up  to  Dec.  31,  1917,  p.  89.) 

II.  In  the  arrangement  of  this  proposed  draft  we  have  met  with 
another  doubtful  point.  This  conference  is  not  empowered  to  con¬ 
sider  other  questions  than  those  referred  to  in  the  agenda  included 
in  the  appendix,  and  therefore  it  would  be  necessary  to  determine 
whether  the  subject  with  which  we  are  dealing  can  naturally  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  pertaining  to  any  of  the  matters  therein  mentioned.  If 
it  can  not,  then  article  402,  last  part,  would  apply,  inasmuch  as  it 
provides  that,  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  delegates  present  at  the 
meeting,  the  subject  may  be  included  in  the  program  for  the  next 
conference.  This  doubt  was  further  increased  by  the  reading  of 
the  report  presented  to  the  conference  by  the  chairman  of  the  Organ¬ 
izing  Committee,  Mr.  Fontaine,  who,  considering  Question  16, 
relative  to  the  date  of  the  next  session  of  the  conference,  mentions 
the  last  paragraph  of  article  402  and  states  his  opinion  that  within 
its  meaning  is  included  the  suggestion,  made  on  August  29, 1919, 
by  the  supreme  council  of  the  allied  and  associated  powers,  in 
which  it  was  decided  not  to  consider  in  the  treaty  of  peace  with 
Austria  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  allied  workers  admitted  to 
enemy  territory,  and  vice  versa,  and  to  refer  the  resolution  of  the 
labor  commission  of  June  4,  1919,  to  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference  at  Washington.  This  matter  has  been  referred  to  the 
unemployment  commission,  as  both  subjects  are  undoubtedly 
closely  related,  and  this  commission  is  to  determine  whether  the 
matter  is  to  be  passed  upon  in  this  session  of  the  conference  or  at 
the  next. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  treaty  of  peace,  in  the  part  of  it 
relative  to  the  methods  of  preventing  and  providing  against  unem¬ 
ployment,  could  not  have  used  broader  terms,  which  are  the  only 
possible  terms  consistent  with  a  true  solution  of  this  problem,  the 
future  solution  of  which  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  obser¬ 
vation  and  study  of  migratory  movements. 

Our  proposed  convention  attempts  precisely  to  remedy  the  con¬ 
sequences  of  unemployment  or,  in  other  words,  to  provide  against 
unemployment,  in  that  it  tends  to  offer  certain  definite  guarantees 
to  workmen  who  have  emigrated  to  other  countries,  and  to  make 
their  situation  better  and  more  secure,  thus  encouraging  them  to 
seek  employment  outside  of  their  own  territory  when  there  is  super¬ 
abundance  of  labor,  the  more  so,  as  it  is  likely  that  we  may  have  a 
repetition  of  the  “seasonal  migration”  to  which  the  report  [of  the 
organizing  committee]  on  unemployment  refers.  (Page  30,  note, 
and  also  on  page  72). 

III.  If  we  go  further  into  the  substance  of  this  matter,  we  find 
that  our  draft  convention  responds  to  a  doctrine  which  has  been 
expounded  in  various  laws  and  conventions.  Among  other  coun¬ 
tries,  Switzerland,  England,  Italy,  Spain,  the  Netherlands,  Sweden, 
Cuba,  and  Chile  do  not  make  any  distinction  whatever  as  regards 
nationality  or  residence  of  the  victim  of  an  accident  or  of  the 
beneficiaries  of  the  compensation.  The  efforts  of  the  International 
Association  for  Labor  Legislation  have  had  happy  results.  Be¬ 
ginning  with  the  French-Italian  treaty  of  April  15,  1904,  there 


146865°— 20 - 16 


242 


APPENDIX 


has  been  a  series  of  international  conventions  which  have  dealt 
with  the  situation  of  foreign  workers  in  regard  to  the  application  of 
the  laws  on  workmen ’s  accidents.  (A  list  of  these  conventions  may 
be  found  in  Stephen  Bauer’s  International  Labor  Legislation  and 
the  Society  of  Nations.1)  To  the  American  section  of  the  same  asso¬ 
ciation  must  be  credited,  to  a  great  extent,  the  trend  of  the  laws  of 
the  different  States  in  the  American  Union,  of  which  only  four  at 
the  present  time  deny  all  rights  to  the  foreign  beneficiary  if  he  is 
not  a  resident  of  this  country.  These  were  the  facts  stated  at  the 
Zurich  conference  in  1912,  in  accordance  with  declarations  made 
in  previous  conferences  at  Basel,  Geneva,  Lucerne,  and  Lugano. 

The  grounds  on  which  this  doctrine  is  established  do  not  need  to 
be  demonstrated  here.  The  doctrine  is  a  part  of  the  jus  novum 
which  the  convention  incorporated,  because  it  was  realized  that 
the  physical,  moral,  and  intellectual  welfare  of  the  industrial  wage 
earners  is  extremely  important  from  an  international  point  of  view. 
Social  legislation  thus  broadens  its  field  and  reaches  all  the  work¬ 
men  who, 'compelled  to  a  great  extent  by  unemployment,  look  for 
a  new  field  for  their  activities. 

IV.  To  Argentina  the  adjustment  of  its  legislation  to  the  new 
doctrines  does  not  mean  any  considerable  effort.  Her  constitution 
(arts.  14  and  20)  establishes  absolute  equality  of  civil  rights  for  all 
her  inhabitants  without  regard  to  their  nationality,  and  while  it  is 
true  that  the  workmen’s  compensation  laws  do  not  grant  the  right 
of  compensation  to  the  heirs  or  dependents  who  are  not  residents 
of  the  country,  an  exception  is  made  in  cases  of  reciprocity  estab¬ 
lished  by  international  agreement  or  conventions.  In  addition  to 
this  the  Argentine  courts,  contrary  to  the  decision  of  the  French 
court  in  the  Renard  case,  hold  that  the  protection  accorded  by' 
the  common  law  to  the  surviving  dependent  relative  is  not  restricted 
or  limited  by  the  special  compensation  laws  for  accidents  to  work¬ 
men. 

Finally,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Argentine  Govern¬ 
ment  delegation,  in  submitting  this  proposed  draft  convention,  is 
influenced  by  the  fact  that  an  enormous  proportion  of  foreigners, 
namely,  28  per  cent,  are  living  in  their  country,  as  shown  by  the 
last  census.  The  reciprocity  clause  is  illusory,  as  there  is  practi¬ 
cally  no  Argentine  emigration,  but  the  Argentine  delegation  places 
the  high  principles  of  social  justice  which  have  led  to  the  calling 
of  this  conference  above  mere  economic  advantages. 

(Signed)  Leonidas  Anastasi, 
Felipe  A.  Espil, 

Delegates  of  Argentina 


MEMORANDUM  OF  THE  ITALIAN  DELEGATION  ON  THE  ITALIAN 

NATIONAL  INSTITUTE  FOR  PLACEMENT  AND  INSURANCE 

AGAINST  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

The  second  of  the  six  chapters  of  the  report  of  the  commission  on 
unemployment  deals  with  the  question  of  finding  employment  for 
workers  and  examines  a  draft  convention  and  two  draft  recommen¬ 
dations. 

The  draft  convention  is  worded  as  follows: 

The  States  ratifying  the  present  convention  or  acceding  thereto  shall  establish  in 
their  respective  countries  a  system  of  free  public  employment  agencies  under  the 
control  of  a  central  authority.  Committees  which  shall  include  representatives 
of  employers  and  representatives  of  the  workers  shall  be  appointed  to  advise  on  mat¬ 
ters  concerning  the  carrying  on  of  the  work  of  such  agencies.  In  States  where  both 
public  and  private  free  employment  agencies  engage  in  the  work  of  finding  employ¬ 
ment  for  the  unemployed,  such  States  shall  take  measures  to  coordinate  the  opera¬ 
tions  of  any  or  all  such  agencies  on  a  national  scale.  The  operation  of  the  several 
national  systems  shall  be  coordinated  by  the  International  Labor  Office  in  agreement 
with  the  States  concerned. 

Without  wishing  to  take  too  much  of  the  time  of  the  conference  or 
too  much  space  in  its  record,  we  should  like  to  make  it  clear  that  Italy 
already  possesses  a  national  employment  bureau,  to  which  are 
intrusted  the  direction  and  the  coordination  of  employment  exchanges 
and  the  carrying  of  unemployment  insurance.  This  exchange  under¬ 


takes  the  placing  of  workers  and  of  certain  classes  of  office  and  store 
employees. 

The  national  employment  system  is  constituted  as  follows: 

1.  A  central  bureau  forming  part  of  and  located  in  the  buildings 
of  the  department  of  industry,  commerce,  and  labor  at  Rome. 

2.  Provincial  commissions  or  councils  for  employment  and  for 
unemployment. 

3.  Local  supervisors. 

Since  the  war  the  National  Institute  for  Placement  and  for  Insur¬ 
ance  against  Unemployment  has  cooperated  with  the  National 
Veterans’  Association,  whose  purpose  is  to  find  employment  and 
sometimes  even  to  provide  capital  for  those  Great  War  veterans  who 
have  found  themselves  or  do  find  themselves  in  straitened  circum¬ 
stances.  The  sum  of  50,000,000  lire  has  been  setaside  for  the  national 
institute  with  which  to  make  loans  or  to  advance  money  to  the  local 
centers  and  to  combat  unemployment  through  provision  of  public 
works,  or  in  other  ways  to  obviate  the  consequences  of  unemploy¬ 
ment. 

Travel  benefits  to  reach  the  place  of  work  may  also  be  advanced 
to  individual  workers  or  groups  of  workers,  if  they  are  registered 
with  the  unemployment  benefit  associations;  likewise,  expenses 
for  lodging,  for  setting  up  soup  houses,  for  purchasing  bare  neces¬ 
sities,  and  for  advance  wages,  etc. 

The  national  unemployment  insurance  fund  is  part  of  the  National 
Institute  for  Placement  and  for  Insurance  against  Unemployment, 
which  administers  it.  It  will  be  composed  of: 

1.  The  remainder  funds  previously  set  aside  for  unemployment. 

2.  Individual  payments  by  those  compulsorily  insured  against 
unemployment,  payments  in  which  the  employers  share. 

3.  An  annuity  of  40,000,000  lire  set  aside  by  appropriation. 

The  central  office,  or  central  board,  as  has  been  said,  has  its  head¬ 
quarters  at  Rome,  as  part  of  the  department  of  industry,  commerce, 
and  labor. 

The  central  office  coordinates  and  supervises  the  operation  of  the 
provincial  unemployment  insurance  funds,  both  those  for  separate 
trades  and  those  which  insure  all  workers;  it  supplies  them  with  the 
necessary  cash,  drawing  it  from  the  fund  which  it  administers;  it 
advances  them  the  amounts  necessary  for  their  establishment  and 
equipment;  it  suggests  the  manner  of  apportioning  the  unemploy¬ 
ment  subventions  and  subsidies. 

The  provincial  boards  for  placing  workers  and  for  insuring  them 
against  unemployment  are  presided  over  by  a  magistrate  and  consist 
of  an  accountant  of  the  prefecture  or  of  the  local  treasury,  a  repre¬ 
sentative  (and  his  substitute)  from  the  employment  bureau  which 
exists  in  the  province,  a  representative  (and  his  substitute)  from  the 
unemployment  insurance  fund  of  the  trade  organizations  which 
exist  in  the  province,  an  engineer  and  a  delegate  from  the  bureau 
of  engineering,  a  representative  (and  his  substitute)  from  the  Nation¬ 
al  Veterans’  Association,  three  representatives  (and  two  substitutes) 
of  the  manufacturers  or  employers,  and  three  representatives  (and 
two  substitutes)  of  the  workers. 

The  provincial  boards — 

(1)  Supervise  the  operation  of  the  local  employment  offices  and  the 
municipal  labor  commissions. 

(2)  Coordinate  the  placing  of  laborers  through  the  Province,  serv¬ 
ing,  as  it  were,  as  a  clearing  house. 

(3)  Administer  the  provincial  insurance  funds  which  cover  sev¬ 
eral  trades,  and  control  the  distribution  of  subsidies. 

(4)  Authorize  the  payment  of  unemployment  benefits. 

(5)  Make  suggestions  and  give  advice  in  the  matter  of  preparing 
plans  in  advance  for  the  execution  of  public  works;  supervise  the 
use  and  refund  of  the  money  advanced. 

(6)  Make  suggestions  and  give  advice  on  the  advance  payment 
of  sums  to  cooperative  groups;  supervise  the  use  and  refund  of  the 
sums  advanced. 

(7)  Act  as  the  agents  of  the  department  of  industry,  commerce, 
and  labor  (National  Exchange  for  Placement  and  Insurance  against 


1  Bulletin  254  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 


APPENDIX 


243 


Unemployment),  to  which  they  make  pertinent  suggestions  for  the 
elimination  of  unemployment  in  the  Province. 

Special  agencies,  organized  according  to  special  regulations,  are 
charged  with  the  placing  of  labor,  free  of  charge.  The  authorized 
agencies  are  registered  at  the  central  exchange.  They  may  be  as¬ 
sisted  by  subsidies  even  permanently.  The  local  supervisors  are 
appointed  from  among  the  factory  inspectors,  or,  where  there  are 
none,  from  among  the  emigration  inspectors,  the  agricultural  exten¬ 
sion  lecturers  or  agents,  or  other  resident  officials. 

The  private  employment  agency  for  gain  is  abolished. 

The  employer  who  does  not  directly  hire  the  labor  of  which  he  has 
need  should  apply  to  the  authorized  agencies. 

Fines  for  contravention  of  the  law  are  exacted  of  both  the  em¬ 
ployer  and  third  parties  involved. 

Placing  of  workers  in  foreign  countries  is  carried  on  under  the 
control  ©f  the  general  emigration  commission,  with  which  the  Italian 
National  Institute  for  Placement  is  constantly  exchanging  informa¬ 
tion  relative  to  labor. 

Every  fortnight  employers  notify  the  employment  exchange  of 
the  names  and  qualifications  of  workers  whom  they  have  engaged 
during  the  past  two  weeks. 

Each  worker  is  supplied  with  a  pass  book,  in  which  is  entered  a 
record  of  all  hiring  and  discharge  from  employment.  This  pass 
book  is  lodged  with  the  employer  hiring  the  worker  and  is  returned 
to  the  latter  when  he  leaves  employment. 

Insurance  against  unemployment  is  compulsory  for  wage  earners 
of  both  sexes,  and  for  employees  other  than  manual  laborers,  who 
may  be  counted  such  by  reason  of  receiving  wages,  or  because  they 
come  under  a  classification  already  established  or  about  to  be  created. 

General  compulsory  unemployment  insurance  funds  covering  all 
trades  are  established  in  each  Province,  and  are  administered  by 
the  competent  provincial  board. 

Funds  established  by  the  separate  trade  organizations  or  through 
agreements  between  employers  and  workers  may  be  authorized  to 
pay  unemployment  insurance. 

Contributions,  until  further  notice,  are  payable  every  fortnight, 
and  range  from  6  centimes  per  day  (wages  below  4  lire  per  day)  to  12 
(wages  from  4  to  8  lire)  and  18  (wages  above  8  lire).  One-half  is 
borne  by  the  employer  and  one-half  by  the  worker.  The  employer 
is  responsible  for  disbursement  of  the  benefits. 

Contributions  are  made  by  means  of  stamps. 

The  unemployment  insurance  funds  make  payments  according  to 
three  classes,  depending  on  the  rate  of  contribution  per  day  as  follows: 
1.25  lire,  2.50  lire,  and  2.75  lire. 

The  unemployment  benefit  is  not  paid  until  after  a  waiting  period 
of  8  days  of  unemployment,  and  is  available  for  a  maximum  period 
of  120  days  per  year.  The  unemployed  worker  is  compelled  to  regis¬ 
ter  at  an  employment  agency  the  day  after  he  stops  work,  unless  he 
intends  to  secure  work  for  himself.  He  is  not  entitled  to  the  benefit 
unless  within  the  two  preceding  years  he  has  paid  at  least  24  fort¬ 
nightly  contributions,  or  an  equivalent  number  of  weekly  or  daily 
contributions.  The  period  during  which  an  unemployed  person  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  is  in  proportion  to  the  period  for  which  he 
has  made  contributions. 

Any  worker  refusing  work  offered  him  loses  his  right  to  benefits. 
The  benefits  may  be  refused  to  persons  addicted  to  idleness  or  drunk¬ 
enness,  or  those  frequenting  places  where  alcoholic  drinks  are  sold. 
Payment  of  benefits  may  depend  in  certain  cases  on  attendance  at 
elementary  or  vocational  training  courses. 

There  are  various  provisions  providing  for  the  effective  operation 
of  the  institute  through  a  system  of  inspection  and  by  granting  finan¬ 
cial  assistance  to  the  different  unemployment  insurance  funds  as 
well  as  the  national  fund  for  the  prevention  of  unemployment. 

Payment  of  insurance  contributions  will  begin  January  1,  1920. 

Temporary  provisions  have  been  made  for  the  benefit  of  those 
workers  who  may  be  out  of  employment  before  the  institute  is  in 
regular  operation. 

(Signed)  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches, 

For  the  Italian  Delegation. 


ADMISSION  OF  PANAMA  WORKERS  TO  THE  CANAL  ZONE  (U.  S.  A.) 

The  following  communication  has  been  submitted  by  the  dele¬ 
gate  from  Panama: 

Mr.  President,  as  delegate  of  the  Government  of  Panama  to  the  International 
Labor  Conference,  I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  you  and  to  the  conference  a  formal 
request  that  Panama  laborers  be  admitted  as  workers  in  the  various  trades  and 
labors  carried  on  in  the  Canal  Zone  in  preference  to  unskilled  laborers  of  other  nations, 
and  on  an  equal  footing  with  laborers  from  the  LTnited  States. 

In  consideration  of  the  fact  that  Panama  has  made  great  sacrifices  to  furnish  the 
United  States  with  every  facility  for  the  construction,  operation,  maintenance,  and 
defense  of  the  interoceanic  canal,  it  would  seem  natural  that  the  canal  authorities 
would  have  given  a  preference  to  our  laborers  over  those  of  other  nationalities, 
of  inferior  qualifications,  as  further  on  explained,  especially  as  Panama  and  the 
United  States  are  so  intimately  allied  in  their  mutual  interests. 

But  unfortunately  such  has  not  been  the  case,  for  since  work  on  the  canal  was  first 
begun,  there  has  been  a  marked  indifference  on  the  part  of  the  canal  directors  to  the 
employment  of  Panama  laborers,  and  they  have  employed  a  very  insignificant 
number  of  our  laborers  in  comparison  to  those  of  other  nationalit  ies. 

In  view  of  this,  I  beg  also  to  state  that  if  Panama  laborers  have  not  been  employed 
in  the  Canal  Zone,  it  has  not  been  because  of  their  incompetency ;  for  the  greaterpart 
of  the  laborers  employed  in  that  work  have  been  less  competent  than  our  men: 
natives  of  the  West  Indies  who  not  only  worked  no  better  than  our  laborers,  but  on 
the  contrary  are  inferior  to  them  in  intelligence  and  skill. 

Mr.  President,  the  Republic  of  Panama  is  dedicating  her  best  efforts  to  public 
education  and  it  is  our  fervent  desire  to  raise  this  branch  of  our  national  service  to 
the  high  plane  which  public  education  occupies  in  the  great  nations  of  the  world. 

We  have  to-day  a  technical  sc.hoolfully  equipped  with  up-to-date  appliances, and 
a  faculty  of  competent  professors.  From  this  school  are  being  turned  out  graduate 
carpenters,  cabinetmakers,  electricians,  mechanics,  metal  workers,  etc.  These  men, 
in  spite  of  their  skill,  have  not  been  able  to  secure  employment  in  the  Canal  Zone, 
although  foreigners  of  much  less  competency  have  been  constantly  employed  there. 

Furthermore,  the  directors  of  work  in  the  Canal  Zone  have  not  even  favored  work¬ 
men  recommended  to  them  by  the  high  authorities  of  our  Republic.  This  dis¬ 
courtesy  seems  all  the  more  extraordinary  because  the  Government  of  Panama  em¬ 
ploys  many  citizens  of  the  United  States,  some  of  whom  occupy  the  most  important 
positions  in  the  departments  of  our  Government. 

Allow  me  also,  Mr.  President,  to  here  remind  you  that  the  Panama  Government, in 
her  anxiety  to  furnish  every  facility  to  the  United  States  Government  for  the  con¬ 
struction  of  the  canal,  has  never  placed  the  slightest  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  immi¬ 
grants  that  have  thronged  into  our  ports  to  take  part  in  that  construction,  and  have 
caused  Panama  enormous  injuries,  from  which  our  nation  will  suffer  indefinitely. 
Through  this  benevolence  on  our  part  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  from  the 
West  Indies  have  settled  in  Panama.  These  people  are  racially  and  intellectually 
inferior  to  ours,  and  with  different  customs,  language,  and  religion. 

These  foreigners,  when  incapacitated  for  work,  are  obliged  to  invade  territoryunder 
the  jurisdiction  of  Panama.  Many  of  them  become  ill  and  insane  in  our  cities,  and 
being  without  resources,  our  Government  is  obliged  to  care  for  them  and  place 
them  in  our  hospitals,  where  there  are  continually  hundreds  of  such  people  at  the 
expense  of  our  Republic.  Many  of  them  are  confined  in  the  insane  asylum  of  the 
Canal  Zone,  where  their  maintenance  should  be  assumed  by  the  United  States 
Government,  which  has  induced  them  to  come  to  the  Isthmus  and  work,  thereby 
depriving  Panama  laborers  from  their  just  share  in  the  canal  work. 

Also  I  wish  to  mention  that  there  is  a  marked  difference  in  the  salaries  paid  to  the 
few  Panama  laborers  who  have  been  fortunate  enough  to  find  work  in  the  Canal 
Zone  and  those  paid  to  the  United  States  laborers. 

Mr.  President,  allow  me  to  hope  that  this  request  may  be  favorably  considered  by 
you  and  by  this  conference  whenever  we  are  gathered  together  here  in  the  interests 
of  the  labor  question. 

(Signed)  Jorge  L.  Paredes. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  November  12, 1919. 


COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN. 

Chairman,  Miss  Constance  Smith  (Great  Britain). 

Government  delegates: 

Judge  Johann  Castberg  (Norway),  Mrs.  Laura  Casartelli,  Cabrini 
(Italy),  Dr.  R.  H.  Elizalde  (Ecuador),  Mr.  E.  Kamada  (Japan), 
Mr.  Louis  James  Kershaw  (India),  Mrs.  Letellier  (France),  Miss 
Constance  Smith  (Great  Britain). 

Employers’  delegates: 

Mr.  E.  Baroni  (Italy),  Mr.  J.  S.  Edstrom  (Sweden),  Mr.  Henry 
(France),  Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  Mr.  Sanji 
Muto  (Japan),  Mr.  Maurice  de  Smet  de  Nayer  (Belgium), 
Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler  (Switzerland). 

Worker’s  delegates: 

Miss  Jeanne  Bouvier  (France),  Mr.  P.  M.  Draper  (Canada),  Mr. 
N.  M.  Joshi  (India),  Miss  Margaret  Bondfield  (Great  Britain), 
Mr.  U.  Masumoto  (Japan),  Mr.  Corneille  Mertens  (Belgium), 
Mrs.  M.  Stivinova  Majerova  (Czecho-Slovakia). 

Secretary,  Miss  Sophy  Sanger  (Great  Britain). 


244 


APPENDIX 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN 

ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH. 

The  commission  has  the  honor  to  present  the  following  report: 

The  question  of  the  employment  of  women  before  and  after  child¬ 
birth  having  been  discussed  on  the  basis  of  the  principles  proposed 
by  the  Organizing  Committee  in  its  Report  III,  pp.  14  and  15  (“  Con¬ 
clusions”),  the  commission  found  itself  in  clear  and  definite  agree¬ 
ment  on  the  following  fundamental  points: 

(1)  That  a  woman  should  not  be  employed  in  any  industrial  under¬ 
taking  for  a  certain  period  after  her  confinement  and  should  be 
entitled  to  benefit  during  the  period  of  prohibition. 

(2)  That  for  a  certain  period  before  childbirth  a  woman  should  be 
either  (a)  prohibited  from  employment  in  an  industrial  undertaking 
or  (b)  permitted  to  leave  her  work  on  a  medical  certificate,  and  that 
in  either  case  she  should  be  entitled  to  benefit. 

(3)  That  a  woman  leaving  her  work  in  consequence  of  regulations 
founded  on  the  principles  of  (1)  and  (2)  should  have  a  right  to  rein¬ 
statement. 

After  a  general  discussion,  extending  over  two  meetings,  of  these 
and  other  points,  including  the  very  important  question  of  the 
amount  and  means  of  payment  of  the  benefit  approved  in  principle, 
the  commission  decided  to  refer  them  to  a  smaller  subcommittee 
for  study  and  report.  The  report  of  the  subcommittee,  which  was 
drawn  up  after  careful  and  scrupulous  examination  of  all  the  ques¬ 
tions  submitted  to  it,  took  the  form  of  a  draft  convention  to  be 
presented  to  the  conference.  Although,  as  has  already  been  inti¬ 
mated,  a  gratifying  unanimity  of  opinion  in  respect  of  general  prin¬ 
ciples  had  been  arrived  at  in  the  full  commission,  this  unanimity 
did  not  extend,  either  here  or  in  the  subcommission,  to  all  the 
methods  proposed  for  carrying  these  principles  into  effect,  and 
considerable  debate  took  place  upon  the  subcommission’s  draft, 
which  was  amended  in  several  important  particulars.  It  is  now 
submitted  to  the  conference  for  approval  in  its  amended  form,  as 
the  outcome  of  sincere  and  serious  endeavor  to  frame  practical 
recommendations  on  a  subject  which  all  its  members  alike  feel 
to  be  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  the  welfare  of  their  respective 
nations  and  of  humanity  at  large.  Although  they  have  been  unable 
to  see  eye  to  eye  at  every  point,  they  feel  that,  with  a  single  excep¬ 
tion,  such  disagreement  as  exists  among  them  relates  mainly  to 
details  and  methods  of  working,  and  that  they  are  at  one  in  the  end 
they  have  attempted  to  secure.  Thus  article  4,  the  first  half  of 
article  5,  and  article  7  were  carried  by  overwhelming  majorities, 
and  article  3  was  agreed  to  nem.con. ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  majorities 
for  the  second  half  of  article  5  and  for  article  8  were  very  small. 
In  the  case  of  article  8  a  strong  resistance  was  put  up  by  the  minority, 
who  considered  that  provision  for  the  nursing  of  infants  by  the 
mother  during  factory  hours  would  represent  a  retrograde  step  in 
industrial  legislation.  A  minority  report  to  follow  this  in  the  record 
has  been  handed  in  by  a  group  of  employers,  proposing  an  amend¬ 
ment  of  the  draft  article  5,  which  would  reduce  the  period  of  the 
right  to  leave  work  before  childbirth  to  four  weeks  (the  period  origi¬ 
nally  recommended  by  the  subcommittee)  instead  of  six. 

Two  recommendations  to  the  conference  are  printed  to  follow  the 
draft  convention  attached.  The  first  arises  out  of  consideration  of 
the  peculiar  position  of  India  where,  although  for  the  present,  owing 
to  national  custom  and  tradition,  no  need  for  prohibition  of  the  em¬ 
ployment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth  appears  to  arise,  the 
Indian  representatives  have  expressed  their  opinion  that  this  ques¬ 
tion  and  the  allied  one  of  maternity  benefit  ought  to  be  made  the 
subject  of  study.  The  other  is  concerned  with  study  of  the  further 
question  of  provision  of  benefit  for  the  working  woman  who  remains 
at  home  after  the  period  covered  by  the  draft  convention  has  expired, 
for  the  purpose  of  caring  for  and  nursing  her  child. 

(Signed)  Constance  Smith, 

Chairman. 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  CONCERNING  EMPLOYMENT  OF 
WOMEN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH. 

The  general  conference  of  the  labor  organization  of  the  League 
of  Nations,  having  been  convened  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  at  Washington,  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, 
and  having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  women’s  employment  before  and  after  childbirth,  which 
is  part  of  the  third  item  in  the  agenda  for  the  Washington  meeting 
of  the  conference,  and  having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall 
take  the  form  of  a  draft  international  convention,  adopts  the  follow¬ 
ing  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the  members  of  the  Labor 
Organization,  in  accordance  with  Part  XIII  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
of  June  28,  1919,  and  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10, 
1919: 

Article  1. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  following: 

(а)  Mines  and  quarries  and  extractive  industries  of  every  kind. 

(б)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  re¬ 
paired,  ornamented,  finished,  or  adapted  for  sale,  or  broken  up  or 
demolished,  or  materials  are  transformed  (including  the  generation, 
transformation,  and  transmission  of  motive  power,  electric,  hy¬ 
draulic,  etc.,  shipbuilding,  laundry  work). 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  repair,  maintenance,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
wall,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  water  work,  or  other  work  of  construction,  and  the  prepa¬ 
ration  for  and  laying  the  foundation  of  any  such  work  or  building. 

(d)  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  including 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  at  warehouses, 
but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  laws  of  each  individual  country  shall  define  the  line  of  divi¬ 
sion  which  separates  industry  from  agriculture  and  commerce. 

Article  2. 

Throughout  this  convention  the  term  “woman”  means  every 
woman,  without  distinction  of  age,  whether  married  or  unmarried, 
employed  in  an  industrial  undertaking;  and  the  term  “child” 
means  the  child  of  any  such  woman,  whether  legitimate  or  illegiti¬ 
mate. 

Article  3. 

This  convention  shall  not  apply  to  industrial  undertakings  in 
which  members  of  the  same  family  only  are  employed. 

Article  4. 

A  woman  shall  not  be  employed  in  an  industrial  undertaking  dur¬ 
ing  the  six  weeks  immediately  following  her  confinement.  A  woman 
who  leaves  her  employment  in  accordance  with  this  article  shall 
receive  benefits  in  conformity  with  article  7  below. 

Article  5. 

A  woman  shall  have  the  right  to  leave  her  work  in  pursuance  of 
a  medical  certificate  stating  that  her  confinement  will  probably  take 
place  in  six  weeks’  time  and  shall  then  be  entitled  to  receive  the 
benefits  contemplated  in  article  7  below.  In  any  case  where  the 
medical  adviser  proves  mistaken  in  estimating  the  date  of  confine¬ 
ment  this  fact  shall  not  preclude  the  woman  from  receiving  the 
aforesaid  benefits  from  the  date  of  the  certificate  up  to  that  on  which 
the  confinement  actually  takes  place. 

Article  6. 

When  a  woman  is  absent  from  her  work  in  accordance  with  arti¬ 
cles  4  and  5  of  this  convention  or  as  a  result  of  illness  medically  cer¬ 
tified  to  arise  out  of  pregnancy  or  confinement  and  rendering  her 
unfit  for  work,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  her  employer  to  give  her 
notice  of  dismissal  during  her  absence  as  aforesaid,  nor  to  give  hei 


APPENDIX 


245 


notice  of  dismissal  at  such  a  time  that  the  notice  would  expire  dur¬ 
ing  her  absence,  until  such  absence  shall  have  exceeded  a  maximum 
period  to  be  fixed  by  the  government  of  each  State. 

Article  7. 

The  benefits  named  in  articles  4  and  5  shall  be  paid  either  by  the 
State  or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance.  The  exact  amount 
shall  be  determined  by  the  government  of  each  State,  providing 
that  it  shall  in  all  cases  be  sufficient  for  the  full  and  healthy  main¬ 
tenance  of  the  mother  and  child.  Free  attendance  by  a  doctor  or 
certified  midwife  shall  be  an  additional  benefit. 

Article  8. 

A  woman  coming  under  this  convention  who  is  nursing  her  infant 
shall  be  allowed  half  an  hour  off  twice  a  day  during  her  working 
hours  for  this  purpose. 


MOTIONS  PROPOSED  BY  THE  COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF 

WOMEN. 

I.  That  the  Indian  government  be  requested  to  make  a  study  of 
the  question  of  the  employment  of  women  before  and  after  con¬ 
finement,  and  of  maternity  benefits,  before  the  next  conference, 
and  to  report  on  these  matters  to  the  next  conference. 

II.  The  commission  recommends  to  the  conference  that  the  Gov¬ 
ernments  be  requested  to  study  the  question  of  giving  every  work¬ 
ing  woman  the  right  to  remain  away  from  work  after  the  birth  of  a 
child  for  a  longer  period  than  that  fixed  in  the  draft  convention, 
and  to  receive  certain  benefits  during  her  absence  for  the  purpose 
of  enabling  her  to  remain  with  and  to  nurse  her  child.  This  subject 
will  be  placed  upon  the  agenda  for  the  next  conference. 


MINORITY  REPORT  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN  BEFORE  AND 
AFTER  CHILDBIRTH. 

In  our  opinion,  and  as  we  understand,  in  the  opinion  of  the  phy¬ 
sicians  connected  with  the  best  maternity  hospitals,  it  is  undesirable 
that  women  who  are  accustomed  to  working  in  factories  should 
cease  work  for  so  long  a  period  as  six  weeks  before  confinement, 
and  we  can  not  support  a  longer  period  than  four  weeks. 

We  are  also  of  the  opinion  that  there  is  no  justification  for  the 
woman  receiving  benefits  for  a  longer  period  than  four  weeks,  if  the 
medical  adviser  has  made  a  mistake  in  his  estimate  of  the  time  of 
confinement,  and  that  it  is  preferable  to  lay  down  no  hard  and  fast 
rule  as  to  the  time  when  she  must  cease  work  prior  to  confinement, 
but  make  it  compulsory  that  she  may  not  work  until  six  weeks  have 
expired  after  childbirth,  as  prescribed  in  article  4. 

We  therefore  submit  the  following  amendment,  viz.,  that  article 
5  should  read  as  follows: 

A  woman  shall  have  the  right  to  leave  her  work  in  pursuance  of  a  medical  certifi¬ 
cate  stating  that  her  confinement  will  probably  take  place  in  four  weeks’  time  and 
shall  then  be  entitled  to  receive  the  benefits  contemplated  in  article  7  below 
(Signed)  J,  Nakahara,  (Japan). 

E.  Kamada  (Japan). 

E.  Henry  (France). 

J.  S.  Edstrom  (Sweden). 

B.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain). 

Dietrich  Schindler  (Switzerland). 

R.  H.  Elizalde  (Equador). 


CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE  ON  EMPLOYMENT 
OF  WOMEN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH.* 

Owing  to  the  variety  of  the  laws  in  force  in  different  countries 
respecting  the  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth, 
and  in  the  present  state  of  information,  the  Organizing  Committee 
thinks  it  only  possible  to  propose  as  a  basis  for  a  draft  international 
convention  the  following  principles: 

I.  Prohibition  of  the  employment  of  women  in  factories  and 
workshops  for  a  period  of  at  least  four  weeks  after  childbirth. 

'Report  on  the  Employment  of  Women  and  Children  and  the  Bern  Conventions 
of  1906,  prepared  by  the  Organizing  Committee  for  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference.  Washington,  1919.  London,  pp.  14,15. 


II.  Adequate  maternity  benefit  for  such  women  to  secure  proper 
maintenance  and  care  of  both  mother  and  child  during  the  period 
of  her  necessary  absence  from  work  before  and  after  childbirth.  The 
committee  suggests  that  this  period  should  be  calculated  at  not  less 
than  six  weeks. 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN  ON 

EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN  AT  NIGHT  AND  THE  EXTENSION  AND 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  BERN  CONVENTION  OF  1906  ON  THE  PROHI¬ 
BITION  OF  THE  NIGHT  WORK  OF  WOMEN  EMPLOYED  IN  INDUSTRY. 

The  commission  has  the  honor  to  present  the  following  report: 

No  attempt  is  made  in  this  report  to  deal  with  the  question  of 
employment  of  women  by  night  in  other  than  industrial  occupa¬ 
tions.  In  view  of  the  limited  time  remaining  at  the  disposal  of  the 
conference,  the  commission  recognizes  the  necessity  of  avoiding  any 
proposal  likely  to  require  prolonged  discussion,  and  has  confined  its 
recommendations  to  a  few  points  arising  out  of  the  accepted  principle 
embodied  in  the  convention  of  Bern  that  women  in  industry  shall 
not  be  employed  during  the  night. 

We  are  in  complete  agreement  with  this  principle  and  with  the 
main  lines  of  its  expression  in  the  Bern  convention  of  1906.  Care¬ 
ful  examination  of  the  terms  of  the  Bern  convention,  has,  however, 
convinced  us  that  it  requires  some  revision  to  make  it  an  efficient 
international  instrument  at  the  present  time ,  apart  from  and  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  that  redrafting  of  the  formal  articles  providing  for  ratification, 
notification,  and  method  of  denunciation  so  evidently  called  for  in 
the  new  situation  created  by  the  covenant  of  League  of  Nations. 
Thirteen  years  have  passed  since  the  convention  was  signed  in  1906. 
During  that  period  great  changes  have  taken  place  in  industry,  social 
standards  have  risen,  and  the  relations  between  peoples  have  been 
profoundly  modified  by  the  war,  with  the  result  that  the  convention 
no  longer  corresponds  to  the  needs  and  opinions  of  the  time.  The 
conference  has  an  opportunity  to  effect  the  necessary  improvements 
and  adjustments  at  this  moment  when  it  deals  with  the  third  item 
of  the  agenda  prescribed  by  the  treaty  of  peace. 

The  commission’s  proposed  changes  are  few  in  number  and  leave 
the  main  provisions  of  the  existing  convention  untouched.  It  is, 
however,  clear  that  it  would  be  impracticable  to  attempt  to  modify 
a  convention  actually  in  force.  The  commission  therefore  recom¬ 
mends  that  a  new  convention  concerning  the  employment  of  women 
at  night  be  put  forth  by  the  conference  to  supersede  the  Bern 
convention  of  1906.  This  new  convention  should,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  commission,  follow  in  outline  the  Bern  convention  of  1906, 
effecting  the  following  changes  in  the  substantial  articles  of  that 
convention: 

1.  For  the  second  paragraph  in  article  1,  substitute  the  following: 

The  present  convention  does  not  in  any  case  apply  to  undertakings  in  which  only 

the  members  of  the  family  are  employed. 

2.  For  the  third  paragraph  in  article  1,  substitute  the  following: 

It  is  incumbent  upon  each  contracting  State  to  define  the  term  “industrial  under¬ 
taking.”  The  definition  shall  in  every  case  include — 

(а)  Mines  and  quarries  and  extractive  industries  of  every  kind. 

(б)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  repaired,  ornamented, 
finished,  or  adapted  for  sale,  or  broken  up  or  demolished,  or  materials  are  trans¬ 
formed  (including  the  generation,  transformation,  and  transmission  of  motive  power, 
electric,  hydraulic,  etc.,  shipbuilding,  laundry  work). 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  repair,  maintenance,  alteration,  or  demolition  of 
any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier,  canal,  inland  waterway,  road, 
tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain,  well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation, 
electrical  undertaking,  gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  and 
the  preparation  for  and  the  laying  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  building. 

The  laws  of  each  individual  country  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which  sepa¬ 
rates  industry  from  agriculture  and  commerce. 

3.  A  new  article  is  proposed  as  follows: 

In  countries  covered  by  article  405,  clause  (3)  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  the  application 
of  the  provisions  of  the  present  convention  may  be  suspended  in  such  industrial 
undertakings  as  may  be  defined  m  this  respect  by  the  Government  of  the  country, 
provided  that  the  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  in  any  case  apply  to  factories 
as  defined  in  the  national  law. 

4.  In  the  third  paragraph  of  article  8,  substitute  “one  year”  for 
“two  years.” 

5.  Omit  the  fourth  paragraph  of  article  8. 


246 


APPENDIX 


The  formal  article  of  the  Bern  convention  of  1906  should  also  he 
revised  so  as  to  be  uniform  with  the  formal  articles  which  may  be 
adopted  for  other  draft  conventions  by  this  conference.  The  com¬ 
mission  therefore  recommends  that  the  conference  approve  the  sug¬ 
gestion  of  a  new  convention  to  embody  the  above  changes  in  the 
substantial  article  in  the  Bern  convention;  and  further  suggests 
that  when  these  changes  are  approved  the  whole  be  referred  to  the 
Drafting  Committee  with  instructions  to  prepare  a  complete  draft 
convention  to  be  put  forth  by  the  labor  conference. 

Reasoned  grounds  for  the  changes  proposed  above  are  as  follows: 

(1)  Gets  rid  of  the  arbitrary  distinction  by  which  any  woman 
working  in  a  factory  employing  less  than  10  persons  has  been  hith¬ 
erto  deprived  of  the  protection  of  Bern.  Such  a  distinction  is  at 
variance  with  the  trend  of  all  modern  factory  legislation. 

(2)  Involves  no  change  in  the  scope  and  intention  of  the  para¬ 
graph.  In  this  more  detailed  definition  of  ‘  ‘industrial  undertaking  ” 
the  commission  was  largely  moved  by  desire  to  bring  their  definition 
into  agreement  with  that  coming  before  the  conference  in  other  draft 
conventions. 

(3)  The  purpose  of  this  proposed  new  article  is  to  facilitate  adhe¬ 
rence  to  the  convention  on  the  part  of  countries  hampered  by  special 
climatic  conditions  or  backward  industrial  organizations,  of  which 
India  may  serve  as  an  example. 

(4)  Seeing  that  considerable  delay  is  allowed  for  under  article  405, 
paragraph  3,  of  the  peace  treaty  as  regards  the  preliminary  steps  to  be 
taken  by  a  State  adhering  to  any  convention  agreed  to  by  the  con¬ 
ference,  the  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  further  time  limit 
of  two  years  allowed  to  an  adhering  State  under  article  8  of  the  con¬ 
vention  of  Bern  might  be  reduced  to  one. 

(5)  The  special  provisions  of  the  fourth  paragraph  of  article  8  were 
introduced  into  the  convention  of  Bern,  1906,  in  order  to  secure  the 
adherence  of  a  single  country — Belgium .  N o  reason  exists  for  making 
them  part  of  a  new  convention.  They  are  therefore  omitted. 

Of  several  amendments  which  were  brought  before  the  committee 
but  did  not  find  acceptance,  one,  in  favor  of  amending  article  2  so 
that  the  interval  to  be  comprised  in  the  11  hours  of  night  rest  should 
end  at  6  (instead  of  5)  in  the  morning  was  vigorously  pressed  by  a 
minority  of  members.  Recognizing  the  strain  upon  women’s  health 
involved  in  beginning  industrial  work  as  early  as  5  a.  m.,  and  the 
weight  to  be  attached  to  the  resolution  of  the  International  Con¬ 
ference  of  Working  Women  recommending  that  the  night  interval 
should  cover  the  period  between  9  p.  m.  and  6  a.m.,  the  commission 
in  general  were  disposed  to  give  sympathetic  consideration  to  this 
amendment.  Nevertheless,  in  face  of  the  strong  representations 
made  by  members  coming  from  States  where  it  is  the  general  custom 
to  begin  work  at  a  very  early  hour  that  such  a  change  at  the  present 
moment,  when  industry  is  still  disorganized  as  a  result  of  the  war 
and  the  shift  system  is  in  general  use,  would  not  only  do  serious 
injury  to  industrial  organization,  but  might  be  the  means  of  de¬ 
priving  women  employed  in  shifts  of  proper  intervals  for  rest  and 
meals,  the  majority  found  themselves  unable  to  vote  for  it. 

In  conclusion,  we  desire  to  express  our  unanimous  opinion  that 
the  adoption  by  the  conference  of  the  new  draft  convention,  which 
will  bring  the  Bern  convention  of  1906  up  to  date,  would  consti¬ 
tute  a  valuable  advance  in  the  protection  of  the  health  of  women 
workers,  and,  through  them,  of  their  children,  and  that  of  the  general 
population  in  each  country,  by  making  the  prohibition  of  night  work 
for  women  engaged  in  industry  more  complete  and  more  effective 
than  it  has  ever  yet  been. 

(Signed)  Constance  Smith, 

Chairman. 


MINORITY  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  NIGHT  WORK  FOR 
WOMEN  ON  MODIFICATIONS  OF  THE  BERN  CONVENTION  OF  1906. 

In  the  course  of  discussion  on  the  changes  to  be  made  in  the  Bern 
convention,  a  modification  of  article  2  was  proposed.  The  reasons 
for  this  proposal  are  summed  up  as  follows: 


Article  2  deals  with  the  duration  and  the  limits  of  the  period 
during  which  vrork  is  prohibited  at  night. 

It  was  agreed  at  Bern  to  fix  the  period  of  uninterrupted  rest  at 
11  hours  per  day,  7  hours  of  which — 10  p.  m.  to  5  a.  m. — should  be 
an  absolute  night  rest  without  any  exception. 

Once  having  established  these  bases,  it  was  fitting  to  examine 
separately  the  question  of  work  in  two  shifts.  As  only  17  hours 
were  reserv  ed  for  work,  the  manufacturers  alleged  that  it  was  not 
possible  for  them  to  keep  two  shifts  at  work  without  losing  an  hour’s 
work. 

In  order  to  take  these  considerations  into  account,  the  Bern  con¬ 
vention  authorized  for  a  period  not  exceeding  three  years  a  tem¬ 
porary  exception  which  permitted  work  to  be  continued  until  11 
o’clock  at  night.  But  these  exceptions  have  terminated,  and  at  the 
present  time  industry  has  only  17  hours  per  day  at  its  disposal,  the 
rest  period  being  comprised  within  the  limits  of  the  day’s  work. 

In  view'  of  the  advantage  obtained  as  regards  the  length  of  the 
working  day  for  men,  which  has  now  been  fixed  at  a  maximum  of 
eight  hours,  it  is  logical  and  humane  to  demand  that  working  women 
w'ho  work  in  shifts  shall  benefit  by  a  corresponding  advantage. 

Therefore  there  is  proper  warrant  by  appealing  to  the  principle 
set  forth  in  article  2  for  trying  to  shorten  as  much  as  possible  the 
periods  which,  although  they  do  not  come  under  the  definition  of 
night  work  as  laid  down  by  implication  in  this  article,  are  none  the 
less  periods  of  uight  work,  and  to  try  to  raise  the  period  of  uninter¬ 
rupted  night  rest  to  eight  hours,  either  from  9  p.  m.  to  5  a.  m.  or  from 
10  p.  m.  to  6  a.  m.,  leaving  16  hours  at  the  disposal  of  industries  work¬ 
ing  in  shifts,  and  maintaining  at  the  same  time  the  principle  sanc¬ 
tioned  in  1906,  namely,  that  some  concessions  are  to  be  mh.de  to 
women  working  in  shifts. 

The  chairman  is  requested  to  mention  in  his  report  to  the  con¬ 
ference  the  foregoing  as  the  expression  of  a  minority  opinion. 

The  minority  of  the  commission  requests,  furthermore,  that  the 
foregoing  proposal  constitute  a  recommendation  and  as  such  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  governing  body,  in  order  that  it  may  be  considered 
by  the  next  conference,  which  will  take  up  the  changes  to  be  made 
in  the  Bern  convention  in  conformity  with  the  vote  taken  by  the 
first  conference  at  Washington,  and  in  conformity  with  the  advance 
of  progress. 

(Signed)  Laura  Casartelli. 


CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE  ON  ADHESION 
TO  BERN  CONVENTION  OF  1906.1 

The  committee  is  of  opinion  that  the  conference  should  recom¬ 
mend  adhesion  to  the  convention  to  all  States  members  of  the 
League.  The  text  of  the  convention  is  as  follows: 

International  Convention  Respecting  the  Prohibition  of 

Night  Work  for  Women  in  Industrial  Employment,  Con¬ 
cluded  at  Bern  in  1906. 

Article  1.  Night  work  in  industrial .  employment  shall  be  pro¬ 
hibited  for  all  women  without  distinction  of  age,  with  the  exceptions 
hereinafter  provided  for. 

The  present  convention  applies  to  all  industrial  undertakings  in 
which  more  than  ten  men  or  women  are  employed :  it  does  not  in  any 
case  apply  to  undertakings  in  which  only  the  members  of  the  family 
are  employed. 

It  is  incumbent  upon  each  contracting  State  to  define  the  term 
“industrial  undertakings.”  The  definition  shall  in  every  case 
include  mines  and  quarries,  and  also  industries  in  which  articles  are 
manufactured  and  materials  transformed;  as  regards  the  latter  the 
laws  of  each  individual  country  shall  define  the  line  of  division 
which  separates  industry  from  agriculture  and  commerce. 

i  Report  on  the  Employment  of  Women  and  Children  and  the  Bern  Conventions 
of  1906,  prepared  by  the  Organizing  Committee  for  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference,  Washington,  D.C.,  1919.  London,  pp.  16-19. 


APPENDIX 


247 


Art.  2.  The  night  rest  provided  for  in  the  preceding  article  shall 
be  a  period  of  at  least  11  consecutive  hours;  within  these  11  hours 
shall  be  comprised  the  interval  between  10  in  the  evening  and  5  in 
the  morning. 

In  those  States,  however,  where  the  night  work  of  adult  women 
employed  in  industrial  occupations  is  not  as  yet  regulated,  the  period 
of  uninterrupted  rest  may  provisionally,  and  for  a  maximum  period 
of  three  years,  be  limited  to  ten  hours. 

Art.  3.  The  prohibition  of  night  work  may  be  suspended — 

1.  In  cases  of  force  majeure,  when  in  any  undertaking  there  occurs 
an  interruption-  of  work  which  it  was  impossible  to  foresee,  and  which 
is  not  of  a  recurring  character. 

2.  In  cases  where  the  work  has  to  do  with  raw  materials  or  mate¬ 
rials  in  course  of  treatment  which  are  subject  to  rapid  deterioration, 
when  such  night  work  is  necessary  to  preserve  the  said  materials  from 
certain  loss. 

Art.  4.  In  those  industries  which  are  influenced  by  the  seasons, 
and  in  all  undertakings  in  case  exceptional  circumstances  demand 
it,  the  period  of  the  uninterrupted  night  rest  may  be  reduced  to  10 
hours  on  60  days  of  the  year. 

Art.  5.  It  is  incumbent  upon  each  of  the  contracting  States  to 
take  the  administrative  measures  necessary  to  insure  the  strict  exe¬ 
cution  of  the  terms  of  the  present  convention  within  their  respective 
territories. 

Each  Government  shall  communicate  to  the  others  through  the 
diplomatic  channel  the  laws  and  regulations  which  exist  or  shall 
hereafter  come  into  force  in  their  country  with  regard  to  the  subject 
matter  of  the  present  convention  as  well  as  the  periodical  reports  on 
the  manner  in  which  the  said  laws  and  regulations  are  applied. 

Art.  6.  The  present  convention  shall  only  apply  to  a  colony, 
possession,  or  protectorate  when  a  notice  to  this  effect  shall  have 
been  given  on  its  behalf  by  the  Government  of  the  mother  country, 
to  the  Swiss  Federal  Council. 

Such  government,  when  notifying  the  adhesion  of  a  colony,  pos¬ 
session,  or  protectorate,  shall  have  the  power  to  declare  that  the 
convention  shall  not  apply  to  such  categories  of  native  labor  as  it 
would  be  impossible  to  supervise. 

Art.  7.  In  extra-European  States,  as  well  as  in  colonies,  posses¬ 
sions,  or  protectorates,  when  the  climate  or  the  condition  of  the  native 
population  shall  require  it,  the  period  of  the  uninterrupted  night 
rest  may  be  shorter  than  the  minima  laid  down  in  the  present  con¬ 
vention  provided  that  compensatory  rests  are  accorded  during  the 
day. 

Art.  8.  The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  and  the  ratifica¬ 
tions  deposited  with  the  Swiss  Federal  Council  by  the  31st  December, 
1908,  at  the  latest. 

A  record  of  this  deposit  shall  be  drawn  up  of  which  one  certified 
copy  shall  be  transmitted  to  each  of  the  contracting  States  through 
the  diplomatic  channel. 

The  present  convention  shall  come  into  force  two  years  after  the 
date  on  which  the  record  of  deposit  is  closed. 

The  time  limit  for  the  coming  into  operation  of  the  present  conven¬ 
tion  is  extended  from  2  to  10  years  in  the  case  of — 

1.  Manufactories  of  raw  sugar  from  beet. 

2.  Wool  combing  and  weaving. 

3.  Open  mining  operations,  when  climatic  conditions  stop  opera¬ 
tions  for  at  least  four  months  every  year. 

Art.  9.  The  States  nonsignatories  to  the  present  convention  shall 
be  allowed  to  declare  their  adhesion  to  it  by  an  act  addressed  to  the 
Swiss  Federal  Council,  who  will  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  each  of  the 
other  contracting  States. 

Art.  10.  The  time  limits  laid  down  in  article  8  for  the  coming  into 
force  of  the  present  convention  shall  be  calculated  in  the  case  of 
nonsignatory  States  as  well  as  of  colonies,  possessions  or  protecto¬ 
rates,  from  the  date  of  their  adhesion. 

Art.  11.  It  shall  not  be  possible  for  the  signatory  States,  or  the 
States,  colonies,  possessions,  or  protectorates  who  may  subsequently 
adhere,  to  denounce  the  present  convention  before  the  expiration 


of  12  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  record  of  the  deposit  of  rati¬ 
fications  is  closed. 

Thenceforward  the  convention  may  be  denounced  from  year  to 
year. 

The  denunciation  will  only  take  effect  after  the  lapse  of  one  year 
from  the  time  when  written  notice  has  been  given  to  the  Swiss  Fed¬ 
eral  Council  by  the  Government  concerned,  or,  in  the  case  of  a  col¬ 
ony,  possession,  or  protectorate,  by  the  Government  of  the  mother 
country.  The  Federal  Council  shall  communicate  the  denunciation 
immediately  to  the  Governments  of  each  of  the  other  contracting 
States. 

The  denunciation  shall  only  be  operative  as  regards  the  State, 
colony,  possession,  or  protectorate  on  whose  behalf  it  has  been 
notified. 

In  witness  whereof  the  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the  present 
convention. 

Done  at  Bern  this  26th  day  of  September,  1906,  in  a  single  copy, 
which  shall  be  kept  in  the  archives  of  the  Swiss  Confederation,  and 
one  copy  of  which,  duly  certified,  shall  be  delivered  to  each  of  the 
contracting  States  through  the  diplomatic  channel. 

STATES  WHICH  HAVE  ADHERED  TO  THE  INTERNATIONAL  CONVENTION 

OF  1906. 

France: 

Algeria. 

Tunis. 

Germany. 

Italy. 

Netherlands. 

Portugal. 

Spain. 

Sweden. 

Switzerland. 


Uganda  Protectorate. 


Austria. 

Belgium . 

British  Empire: 

Great  Britain. 
New  Zealand. 
Ceylon. 

Fiji  Islands. 
Gibraltar. 

Gold  Coast. 
Leeward  Islands. 
Northern  Nigeria. 


COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDEEN. 

Chairman,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain). 

Government  delegates: 

Mr.  Carlos  Armenteros  y  Cardenas  (Cuba);  Sir  Macolm  Delevingue 
(Great  Britain);  Mr.  G.  Fasolato  (Italy),  substitute  for  Baron 
Mayor  des  Planches;  Mr.  H.  Waring  ton  Smyth  (South  Africa); 
Mr.  ,7.  Sousek  (Czecho-Slovakia);  Mr.  Hans  Sulzer  (Switzerland); 
Dr.  T.  Uyeda  (Japan),  substitute  for  Dr.  M.  Oka. 

Employers’  delegates: 

Mr.  E.  Baroni  (Italy);  Mr.  E.  Cantacuz6ne  (Greece);  Mr.  Marcel 
Fraipont  (Belgium),  substitute  for  Mr.  Jules  Carlier;  Mr.  Henry 
(France),  substitute  for  Mr.  Louis  Guerin;  Mr.  SanjiMuto  (Japan); 
Mr.  A.  R.  Murray  (India);  Mr.  Alfonso  Sala  (Spain). 

Workers’  delegates: 

Mr.  Edmund  Bernatowicz  (Poland);  Miss  Mary  MacArthur  (Great 
Britain);  substitute  for  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning;  Mr.  F.  L. 
Caballero  (Spain);  Mr.  Peder  Hedebol  (Denmark),  substitute  for 
Mr.  C.  F.  Madsen;  Mr.  N.  M.  Joshi  (India);  Mr.  Lenoir  (France), 
substitute  for  Mr.  Leon  Jouhaux;  Mr.  J.  Vidnes  (Norway),  sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  Ole  Lian. 

Secretary,  Miss  Grace  Abbott  (United  States). 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDREN, 
UPON  THE  AGE  OF  ADMISSION  OF  CHILDREN  TO  EMPLOY¬ 
MENT. 

The  commission  on  the  employment  of  children  presents  its 
report  on  the  first  of  the  two  subjects  referred  to  it,  viz.,  the  age  of 
admission  of  children  to  employment.  It  has  decided  to  recom- 


248 


APPENDIX 


mend  the  adoption  of  the  draft  convention  prepared  by  the  organ¬ 
izing  committee,  with  certain  modifications  The  convention  as 
modified  is  attached  to  this  report. 

1.  Age  of  admission. — The  proposal  to  fix  the  age  of  admission  at 
14  was  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote  of  the  commission  after  pro¬ 
posals  to  raise  the  limit  to  15  and  16  years,  respectively,  had  been 
brought  forward  and  defeated  by  large  majorities.  In  joining  in  the 
unanimous  vote  to  recommend  the  age  of  14,  the  members  who  had 
urged  the  adoption  of  the  higher  limit  asked  that  it  should  be  made 
clear  that  they  did  so  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  would  bring  a  con¬ 
siderable  advance  on  the  present  conditions  in  a  number  of  coun¬ 
tries  and  on  the  understanding  that  they  regarded  it  as  a  transitional 
measure  toward  the  adoption  of  a  higher  limit  later  on. 

2.  Application  of  convention. — The  limiting  of  the  convention  at 
present  to  industrial  work  was  also,  after  considerable  discussion, 
unanimously  adopted.  Proposals  were  made  to  extend  the  scope  of 
the  convention  to  commerce,  agriculture,  and  all  other  kinds  of 
employment.  The  discussion  of  these  proposals  made  it  clear  that 
the  extension  would  not  be  generally  acceptable,  and  it  was  urged 
that  the  matter  could  not  be  satisfactorily  considered  at  the  present 
conference  as  the  proposals  had  not  been  examined  and  reported  on 
by  the  organizing  committee  and  no  representatives  of  agriculture 
and  other  employments  were  present  at  the  conference.  The  com¬ 
mission,  on  a  vote,  was  found  to  be  equally  divided,  and  finally  it 
was  unanimously  agreed  to  recommend: 

(a)  That  the  convention  should  be  limited  at  present  to  industrial 
undertakings. 

(b)  That  the  conference  should  pronounce  in  favor  of  the  limita¬ 
tion  of  the  age  of  admission  to  agricultural,  commercial,  and  other 
occupations,  and  that  the  question  should  be  referred  to  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office  for  consideration  with  a  view  to  the  question 
being  brought  up  at  the  International  Labor  Conference  next  year. 

3.  Exceptions. — Proposals  were  submitted  by  the  Belgian  employ¬ 
ers’  delegate  and  supported  by  the  Italian  Government  delegate 
and  the  Spanish  employers’  delegate  to  allow  a  transitional  period, 
during  which  it  should  be  permissible  to  employ  children  who  had 
completed  their  elementary  education  in  accordance  with  the  edu¬ 
cational  laws  of  their  country  between  the  ages  of  13  and  14.  It 
was  urged  that  it  would  not  be  possible  to  make  the  arrangements 
for  continuing  the  education  of  the  children  up  to  the  age  of  14 
within  the  period  of  grace  allowed  by  the  draft  convention,  that 
is,  before  the  1st  of  January,  1922,  especially  in  Italy  and  Greece, 
where  the  educational  limit  at  present  is  12.  The  workers’  repre¬ 
sentatives  on  the  commission,  on  the  other  hand,  proposed  to  advance 
the  date  on  which  the  convention  should  come  into  force  from  Jan¬ 
uary  1,  1922,  to  January  1,  1921.  It  was  pointed  out  that,  as  the 
treaty  allows  the  Government  of  a  State  12  months  within  which  to 
bring  the  draft  convention  before  the  legislative  authority  and  to 
pass  the  necessary  legislative  measures,  it  would  not  be  practicable 
to  bring  the  convention  into  force  by  the  1st  of  January,  1921.  It 
was  finally  decided,  by  a  majority  of  10  to  5,  to  leave  the  date  as 
proposed  in  the  draft  convention,  but  it  was  agreed  that  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  International  Labor  Office  should  be  called  to  the  diffi¬ 
culties  which  would  arise  in  those  countries  where  there  is  consid¬ 
erable  gap  between  the  age  of  admission  to  employment  as  proposed 
by  the  convention  and  the  age  at  which  the  education  of  children 
is  completed,  and  that  the  office  should  be  asked  to  approach  the 
Governments  concerned,  with  a  view  to  the  necessary  provisions 
being  made. 

4.  Definition  of  industrial  undertakings. — As  the  definition  of 
industrial  undertakings  will  be  discussed  in  other  conventions,  it 
was  agreed  that  the  commission  should  not  deal  with  the  question. 

5.  Article  2. — It  was  unanimously  agreed  to  adopt  a  revised  text 
of  this  article,  with  a  view  to  making  the  object  of  the  article  clearer. 

6.  No  question  arose  on  article  3. 

7.  Application  of  the  convention  to  oriental  countries. — The  com¬ 
mission  referred  the  question  of  the  application  of  the  draft  conven¬ 


tion  to  the  oriental  countries  to  a  subcommission  consisting  of  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  India,  China,  Japan,  Persia,  and  Siam  under  the 
chairmanship  of  Mr.  G.  Bellhouse.  A  careful  examination  of  the 
subject  was  made  by  the  subcommission  and  was  afterwards  fully 
considered  by  the  entire  commission.  As  a  result  of  the  discussion 
it  was  agreed  by  a  large  majority  that  the  following  modifications 
in  the  application  of  the  convention  should  be  recommended: 

(1)  In  Japan: 

(a)  The  minimum  age  should  be  14,  but  a  child  over  12  years  of 
age  may  be  admitted  into  employment  if  he  has  finished  the  course 
in  the  elementary  school. 

( b )  The  provision  in  the  present  law  admitting  children  under 
12  to  certain  light  and  easy  employment  shall  be  repealed. 

(c)  As  regards  children  between  12  and  14  who  have  been  em¬ 
ployed,  the  Government  reserves  the  right  to  make  transitional 
regulations. 

(2)  In  the  case  of  India  and  other  oriental  countries,  the  com¬ 
mission  regrets  that  it  has  not  been  able  to  submit  a  final  recommen¬ 
dation.  The  Indian  Government  delegate  stated  that  the  Indian 
Government  was  at  the  present  moment  considering  the  question, 
which  was  closely  bound  up  with  the  introduction  of  an  educational 
system  into  India,  and  had  not  arrived  at  a  decision.  Moreover,  pro¬ 
posals  of  the  organizing  committee  had  not  been  received  in  India 
before  the  departure  of  the  delegates,  and  they  had  therefore  been 
unable  to  consult  them  with  reference  to  the  report.  In  these  cir¬ 
cumstances  it  was  proposed  that  the  question  of  the  application  of 
the  convention  should  be  deferred  until  the  International  Labor 
Conference  of  1920,  with  a  view  to  the  conference  being  placed  in 
possession  of  the  proposals  of  India  and  the  other  Governments 
and  a  supplementary  report  being  then  adopted.  (It  was  pointed 
out  by  the  Government  delegate  from  South  Africa  that  a  similar 
question  arose  with  reference  to  the  employment  of  Indian  and 
native  labor  in  South  Africa  and  that  the  decision  there  must  depend 
on  the  policy  adopted  by  the  Indian  Government.) 

A  counter  proposal  was  made  that  in  the  oriental  countries  the 
age  of  admission  should  be  fixed  at  12  for  (a)  factories  with  mechan¬ 
ical  power  and  employing  not  less  than  10  persons,  ( b )  mines  and 
quarries,  (c)  railroads,  and  (d)  docks.  It  was  decided  by  a  majority 
of  6  to  2  to  adopt  the  first  proposal,  and  to  make  a  recommendation 
to  the  conference  accordingly. 

8.  It  was  decided  by  a  large  majority  to  omit  article  5,  which 
provides  that  the  convention  may  be  suspended  in  any  country  by 
order  of  the  Government  in  the  event  of  war  or  of  imminent  danger 
of  war. 

(Signed)  Malcolm  Delevingne,  Chairman. 


Appenoix. 

DRAFT  OF  A  CONVENTION  TO  FIX  THE  AGE  OF  ADMISSION 
OF  CHILDREN  TO  INDUSTRIAL  EMPLOYMENT  AT  14  YEARS. 

1.  Children  under  the  age  of  14  years  shall  not  be  employed  or 
work  in  any  industrial  undertaking  (public  and  private  and  to 
all  branches  thereof  of  whatsoever  kind)  other  than  an  undertak¬ 
ing  in  which  only  the  members  of  the  family  are  employed. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  follow¬ 
ing: 

(а)  Mines  and  quarries. 

(б)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  re¬ 
paired,  ornamented,  finished,  or  adapted  for  sale,  or  materials  are 
transformed  (including  the  generation  and  transformation  of  elec¬ 
tricity,  shipbuilding,  laundry  work). 

•  (c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  altera¬ 
tion,  or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor, 
dock,  pier,  canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct, 
sewer,  drain,  well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical 
undertaking,  gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction, 


APPENDIX 


249 


and  the  preparation  for  and  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such 
work  or  building. 

( d)  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  including 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  at  warehouses, 
but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  national  law  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which  separates 
industry  on  the  one  side  and  commerce  and  agriculture  on  the  other. 

2.  This  convention  shall  not  be  deemed  to  apply  to  work  done  by 
children  in  technical  schools,  provided  such  work  is  approved  and 
supervised  by  the  authorities  in  accordance  with  the  national  law 
of  each  country. 

3.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this 
convention,  every  employer  in  an  industrial  undertaking  shall  be 
required  to  keep  a  register  of  children  employed  by  him  and  of  the 
dates  of  their  birth. 

4.  In  the  application  of  the  convention  to  Japan  the  following 
modifications  may  take  effect: 

(a)  The  minimum  age  shall  be  14,  but  a  child  over  12  years  of  age 
may  be  admitted  into  employment  if  he  has  finished  the  course  in  the 
elementary  school. 

(b)  The  provision  in  the  present  law  admitting  children  under  12 
to  certain  light  and  easy  employment  shall  be  repealed. 

(c)  As  regards  children  between  12  and  14  who  have  been  em¬ 
ployed,  the  Government  reserves  the  right  to  make  transitional 
regulations. 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into  force 
not  later  than  the  1st  of  January,  1922. 


RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE  UPON  THE 
AGE  OF  ADMISSION  OF  CHILDREN  TO  EMPLOYMENT.1 * 1 2 

The  committee  submits  for  the  consideration  of  the  conference  a 
draft  convention  prohibiting  the  employment  in  industrial  work  of 
children  below  the  age  of  14  years. 

DRAFT  OF  A  CONVENTION  TO  FIX  THE  AGE  OF  ADMISSION 
OF  CHILDREN  TO  INDUSTRIAL  EMPLOYMENT  AT  14 


YEARS. 

1.  Children  under  the  age  of  14  years  shall  not  be  employed  or 
work  in  any  industrial  undertaking  other  than  an  undertaking  in 
which  only  the  members  of  the  family  are  employed. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  following: 

(а)  Mines  and  quarries. 

(б)  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  re¬ 
paired,  ornamented,  finished,  or  adapted  for  sale,  or  materials  are 
transformed  (including  the  generation  and  transformation  of  elec¬ 
tricity,  shipbuilding,  laundry  work). 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbour,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork  or  other  work  of  construction,  apd  the  prepara¬ 
tion  for  and  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  building. 

( d )  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  including 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  at  warehouses, 
but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  national  law  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which  separates 
industry  on  the  one  side  and  commerce  and  agriculture  on  the  other. 

2.  In  the  case  of  children  between  13  and  14,  whose  education 
under  the  national  law  includes  technical  training,  this  convention 
shall  not  prohibit  such  technical  training  being  given  by  way  of  em¬ 
ployment  in  industrial  undertakings,  in  accordance  with  the  direc¬ 
tion  and  subject  to  the  control  of  the  educational  authority. 

3.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this 
convention,  every  employer  in  an  industrial  undertaking  shall  be 

1  Report  on  the  Employment  of  Women  and  Children  and  the  Bern  Conventions 
of  1906,  prepared  by  the  Organizing  Oommittee  lor  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference.  Washington,  1919.  London,  pp.  49,  SO. 


required  to  keep  a  register  of  children  employed  by  him  and  of  the 
dates  of  their  birth. 

4.  In  those  countries  in  which  climatic  conditions,  the  imperfect 
development  of  industrial  organization  or  other  special  circumstances 
render  the  industrial  efficiency  of  the  workers  substantially  different, 
the  following  modifications  of  the  provisions  of  this  convention  mav 
take  effect:1 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  may  be  suspended  in  any 
country  by  order  of  the  Government  in  the  event  of  war  or  of  immi¬ 
nent  danger  of  war. 

6.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into  force  not 
later  than  the  1st  January,  1922. 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDREN 
UPON  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDREN  DURING  THE  NIGHT. 

The  commission  on  the  employment  of  children  has  the  honor  to 
present  its  report  on  the  second  question  referred  to  it — the  employ¬ 
ment  of  young  persons  during  the  night. 

They  recommend  the  adoption  by  the  conference  of  a  conven¬ 
tion  adopting  the  proposals  continued  in  the  draft  appended  to  this 
report. 

The  question  of  the  employment  of  young  persons  during  the 
night  was  considered  by  an  International  Conference  at  Bern  in 
1913.  That  conference  recommended  the  adoption  of  an  inter¬ 
national  convention  to  prohibit  employment  at  night  of  persons 
below  the  age  of  16  years  subject  to  certain  exceptions,  but  the  out¬ 
break  of  war  prevented  any  action  being  taken  on  the  proposal. 
The  subject  has  been  further  examined  by  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  in  the  light  of  the  replies  received  to  their  questionnaire, 
and  in  their  report  on  the  question  they  have  suggested  that  the 
conference  should  consider  the  desirability  of  raising  the  age  limit 
from  16  to  18.  A  draft  convention  based  on  the  draft  prepared  at 
Bern,  but  embodying  the  higher  age  limit,  was  submitted  by  the 
committee.  The  commission  on  children’s  employment  decided 
to  adopt  the  committee’s  draft  as  the  basis  for  their  consideration 
of  the  question. 

Article  1. — After  a  full  discussion  of  the  subject  the  commission 
has  unanimously  decided  to  recommend  that  the  employment  of 
young  persons  at  night  should  be  prohibited  up  to  the  age  of  18, 
but  it  recognized  that,  if  the  higher  age  limit  were  adopted,  excep¬ 
tions  would  be  necessary  for  certain  industries.  The  industries 
for  which  exceptions  are  considered  to  be  required  are  those  in 
which  it  is  necessary,  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  process  or  to 
avoid  waste  of  material  or  fuel,  to  carry  on  the  work  day  and  night 
by  a  succession  of  shifts.  It  is  the  almost  universal  custom  in  these 
industries  for  the  shifts  to  take  turns  on  night  work  and  where  boys 
are  employed  with  men  in  work  of  this  kind,  it  is  necessary  that 
they  should  be  able  to  take  their  turns  of  night  work  with  the  men 
of  their  shift.  The  exceptions  recommended  have  been  carefully 
considered  in  consultation  with  the  technical  experts  and  it  will 
be  observed  that  the  wording  of  the  exceptions  has  been  so  phrased 
as  to  limit  them  to  the  actual  work  or  process  in  the  industry  which 
is  necessarily  continuous.  No  permission  should  be  given  in  other 
work  in  the  industries  mentioned  which  is  not  necessarily  continuous. 

In  dealing  with  the  remaining  articles  of  the  draft  the  commission 
has  thought  it  best  to  depart  as  little  as  possible  from  the  wording 
which  was  adopted  at  Bern.  It  may  be  possible  after  some  experi- 

1  As  in  the  case  of  the  other  subjects  on  the  agenda  the  committee  has  been  unable 
to  make  any  suggestions  as  to  the  modifications  required  in  the  case  of  the  countries 
mentioned  in  paragraph  2  of  article  427  of  the  treaty  as  the  replies  from  Japan,  India, 
and  some  other  countries  had  not  been  received,  but  they  desire  to  record  the  follow¬ 
ing  suggestion  put  forward  tentatively  by  Mr.  Oka  (Japan): 

(1)  The  limitation  of  the  age  of  employmentshould  berestrictedtoindustrialun- 
dertakingsin  which  more  than  10  persons  arc  employed,  i.e.,  should  be  subject  to  the 
same  restrictions  as  those  provided  by  Article  3  of  the  draft  convention  drawn  up  at 
Berne  in  1913. 

(2)  The  minimum  age  should  be  fixed  either  at  13  or  14  years, allowingexceptions  in 
the  case  of  children  who  have  completed  their  course  of  elementary  education. 


250 


APPENDIX 


ence  of  the  working  of  the  convention  has  been  obtained  to  make 
some  of  the  provisions  more  precise. 

In  article  2  the  commission  has  unanimously  agreed  to  a  modi¬ 
fication  of  the  hours  of  the  night  rest  to  meet  a  difficulty  -which 
arises  in  some  instances  where  the  system  of  two-day  shifts  of  eight 
hours  each  is  in  operation.  In  some  countries  (e.  g.  Belgium)  an 
interval  of  one  hour  for  purposes  of  meals  and  rest  is  required  by  law 
to  be  allowed  during  the  period  of  work,  and  in  such  cases  the  two 
consecutive  shifts  cover  a  period  of  18  hours,  which  is  one  hour 
longer  than  the  period  comprised  between  5  a.  m.  and  10  p.  m. 
The  commission  thought  it  desirable  to  make  provision  for  these 
cases,  in  order  not  to  make  it  necessary  to  reduce  the  rest  interval 
allowed  to  the  workers. 

In  article  3  it  has  introduced  words  to  limit  the  application  of 
the  exception  to  young  persons  over  the  age  of  16.  It  is  recom¬ 
mended  that  the  reports  on  the  application  of  this  article  in  the 
various  countries  should  be  obtained  by  the  International  Labor 
Office  and  that,  if  necessary,  the  question  of  making  its  provisions 
more  precise  should  be  submitted  for  further  consideration  at  a 
subsequent  conference. 

As  regards  article  4,  the  conditions  existing  in  the  oriental  coun¬ 
tries  were  considered  by  the  subcommission  referred  to  in  the 
commission’s  previous  report.  The  proposals  made  by  the  sub¬ 
commission  were  unanimously  accepted  by  the  commission. 

Japan:  The  age  below  which  night  work  is  to  be  prohibited 
should  be  fixed  at  15  for  three  years  and  at  16  thereafter,  but  no 
exceptions  to  be  allowed  other  than  those  provided  for  in  the  con¬ 
vention.  The  limit  of  15  years  was  recently  fixed  by  the  Japanese 
Legislature,  but  as  it  was  not  to  take  effect  for  a  period  of  12  years, 
the  present  proposal  will  effect  a  substantial  advance  on  existing 
conditions.  The  Japanese  employers  have  consented  to  the 
proposals. 

India:  The  age  is  to  be  fixed  at  14  for  boys  and  18  for  girls.  The 
provisions  of  the  convention  will  apply  only  to  factories  as  defined 
in  the  national  law,  and  the  commission  strongly  recommends  for 
the  consideration  of  the  Indian  Government  that  the  present  pro¬ 
vision  in  that  law  which  limits  its  application  to  industries  employ¬ 
ing  50  persons  or  more  should  be  modified  and  all  factories  employing 
at  least  20  persons  brought  under  the  provisions  relating  to  the 
prohibition  of  night  work. 

The  law  already  includes  a  provision  which  enables  the  Govern¬ 
ment  to  extend  the  law  to  such  factories,  and  the  power  has  already 
been  exercised  to  a  considerable  extent. 

As  regards  the  other  countries,  the  information  available  at  present 
is  insufficient  to  enable  the  commission  to  make  definite  proposals, 
and  it  is  suggested,  therefore,  that  the  question  of  the  application 
of  the  convention  to  these  countries  should  be  deferred  until  the 
International  Labor  Conference  of  1920. 

The  commission  has  restored  a  provision  which  appeared  in  the 
Bern  draft  convention  of  1913,  but  was  omitted  in  the  draft  of  the 
organizing  committee,  allowing  a  modification  of  the  period  of  rest 
in  tropical  countries  where  the  heat  necessitates  a  suspension  of 
work  during  the  middle  of  the  day. 

A  proposal  was  also  submitted  by  the  employers’  delegate  from 
Belgium  to  restore  the  exception  which  appeared  in  the  Bern  draft 
convention,  but  was  omitted  in  the  organizing  committee’s  draft, 
allowing  employment  of  boys  between  14  and  16  in  certain  kinds 
of  glass  manufacture  and  in  the  steel  mills  for  a  transitional  period 
of  10  years.  It  was  very  strongly  urged  that  in  the  present  condi¬ 
tion  of  Belgium  industries  resulting  from  the  wars  and  the  occupation 
of  Belgium  by  the  German  armies,  an  immediate  prohibition  of 
the  employment  of  boys  under  16  at  night  would  cripple  these 
industries.  The  proposal  was  supported  by  the  French  employers’ 
delegate. 

The  commission  was  very  unwilling  to  agree  to  so  long  a  delay  in 
the  application  of  the  principle  adopted  in  the  drafUconvention, 
and  it  was  felt  that  it  would  be  better  that  the  conference,  before 
coming  to  a  decision,  should  wait  and  see  what  progress  was  made 


in  the  reconstruction  of  the  industry  in  these  region*  during  the 
two  years  which  will  elapse  before  the  draft  convention  comes  into 
operation.  They  have  unanimously  decided  therefore  to  submit 
the  following  proposal:  that  in  the  devastated  regions  and  in  the 
regions  in  which  work  was  interrupted  for  a  long  period  during  the 
war  by  the  occupation  of  the  armies,  the  prohibition  of  night  work 
for  young  persons  between  14  and  16  years  of  age  in  pursuance  of 
this  convention  shall  be  referred  for  a  final  decision  to  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference  of  1921. 

Finally,  the  commission  recommends  that  the  date  on  which  the 
convention  shall  come  into  operation  should  be  July  1,  1922.  It  is 
understood  that  this  is  the  date  on  which  the  draft  convention  on 
the  employment  of  women  at  night  will  come  into  operation,  and 
it  will  be.  convenient  that  the  two  conventions  should  take  effect 
at  the  same  time. 

A  motion  has  been  filed  by  the  Spanish  employer’s  delegate  for 
the  adoption  in  connection  with  the  convention  of  a  resolution  on 
the  subject  of  technical  education.  This  question  does  not  come 
within  the  scope  of  the  reference  to  the  commission,  neither  did  it 
have  the  time  or  the  information  necessary  to  enable  it  to  study  the 
subject.  It  has  not  therefore  considered  the  motion. 

(Signed)  Malcolm  Delevingne,  Chairman. 

Appendix. 

DRAFT  OF  AN  INTERNATIONAL  CONVENTION  TO  PROHIBIT 

THE  NIGHT  WORK  OF  YOUNG  PERSONS  EMPLOYED  IN 

INDUSTRY. 

Article  1.  Subject  to  the  exceptions  hereinafter  provided  young 
persons  under  18  years  of  age  shall  not  be  employed  at  night  in  an 
industrial  undertaking,  public  or  private,  and  all  branches  thereof 
of  whatsoever  kind,  other  than  an  undertaking  in  which  only  the 
members  of  the  family  are  employed . 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  following: 

(a)  Mines  and  quarries. 

( h )  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  re¬ 
paired,  ornamented,  finished,  or  adapted  for  sale,  or  materials  are 
transformed  (including  the  generation  and  transformation  of  elec¬ 
tricity,  shipbuilding,  laundry  work). 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock, 
pier,  canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer, 
drain,  well,  telegraphic,  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  un¬ 
dertaking,  gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  and 
the  preparation  for  and  laying  the  foundation  of  any  such  work  or 
building. 

( d )  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  including 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  at  warehouses, 
but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  national  law  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which  separates 
industry  on  the  one  side  and  commerce  and  agriculture  on  the  other. 

Art.  2.  The  period  of  rest  during  the  night  provided  for  in  Article 
1  shall  comprise  at  least  11  consecutive  hours,  which  shall  include 
the  period  between  10  p.  m.  and  5  a.  m. 

In  industries  in  which  work  is  divided  into  two  shifts  the  first 
shift  may  begin  at  4  a.  m.  and  the  second  may  finish  at  10  p.  m.,  or 
the  first  shift  may  begin  at  5  a.  m.  and  the  second  may  finish  at  11 
p.  m. 

In  tropical  countries  where  work  is  suspended  during  the  middle 
of  the  day,  the  period  of  rest  at  night  may  be  less  than  11  hours,  pro¬ 
vided  that  compensatory  rests  are  accorded  during  the  day. 

In  coal  and  lignite  mines  an  exception  may  be  made  in  regard  to  . 
the  period  of  rest  provided  in  the  previous  paragraph,  when  the  in¬ 
terval  between  the  two  periods  of  work  usually  amounts  to  15  hours, 
but  in  no  case  in  which  it  amounts  to  less  than  13  hours. 

In  States  where  night  work  is  prohibited  by  the  national  legisla¬ 
tion  for  all  workers  employed  in  baking,  the  period  from  9  p.  m  to 
4  a.  m.  may  be  substituted  in  that  industry  for  the  period  from  10 
p.  m.  to  5  a.  m.,  provided  in  paragraph  1. 

Art.  3.  The  prohibition  of  night  work  shall  not  apply  to  young 
persons  over  the  age  of  16  who  are  employed  in  the  following  in- 


APPENDIX 


251 


d  us  tries  or  work  which  is  required  by  the  nature  of  the  process  or  to 
avoid  the  waste  of  fuel  or  material  to  be  carried  on  continuously 
day  and  night. 

(а)  Manufacture  of  iron  and  steel ;  processes  in  which  reverberatory 
or  regenerative  furnaces  are  used;  and  galvanizing  of  sheet  metal 
and  wire  (except  the  pickling  process). 

(б)  Glassworks. 

(c)  Manufacture  of  paper. 

( d )  Manufacture  of  raw  sugar. 

Art.  4.  The  prohibition  of  night  work  for  young  persons  over  16 
years  of  age  may  he  suspended— 

(a)  If  the  State  or  public  interest  requires  it; 

( b )  When  some  emergency  which  the  employer  could  not  control 
or  foresee,  and  which  is  not  of  a  periodical  character,  occurs  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  normal  working  of  the  undertaking. 

Art.  5.  The  provisions  of  the  present  convention  are  applicable 
to  girls  of  less  than  18  years  of  age  whenever  these  provisions  involve 
greater  restrictions  on  the  period  of  employment  than  those  pro¬ 
vided  by  the  Bern  convention  on  the  night  work  of  women  of  the 
26th  day  of  September,  1906. 

Art.  6.  In  the  application  of  this  convention  to  Japan  and  India, 
the  following  modifications  of  the  provisions  of  this  convention  may 
take  effect: 

(а)  In  Japan,  “15  years  of  age”  for  the  first  three  years  after  the 
convention  comes  into  operation,  and  thereafter  16  years  of  age  shall 
be  substituted  in  article  1  as  the  age  below  which  the  employment 
of  young  persons  at  night  shall  be  prohibited. 

(б)  In  India  the  convention  shall  apply  only  to  persons  employed 
in  factories  as  defined  by  the  Indian  factory  act;  and  in  the  case 
of  male  young  persons,  14  shall  be  substituted  in  article  1  as  the  age 
below  which  employment  at  night  shall  be  prohibited. 

Art.  7.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into 
force  not  later  than  July  1,  1922.  In  its  application  to  the  regions 
which  have  been  devastated  by  the  war  or  in  which  work  has  been 
interrupted  for  a  long  period  by  the  occupation  of  the  armies,  the 
prohibition  of  night  work  for  young  persons  between  14  and  16,  as 
provided  for  by  this  convention,  shall  be  referred  for  final  decision 
to  the  International  Labor  Conference  of  1921. 


RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE  ON  THE 
EMPLOYMENT  OF  YOUNG  PERSONS  DURING  THE  NIGHT.1 * 1 2 

The  draft  convention  adopted  at  Bern^in  1913  will  require  some 
alteration  in  drafting  to  make  it  correspond  with  the  draft  con¬ 
ventions  submitted  by  the  organizing  committee  in  regard  to  the 
48-hour  week  and  the  age  of  admission  of  children,  etc.,  particularly 
in  respect  of  the  definition  of  industrial  processes.  The  organizing 
committee  also  suggests  that  the  conference  should  consider  the 
desirability  of  raising  the  age  up  to  which  the  prohibition  is  to  apply 
from  16  to  18,  as  recommended  by  several  countries.  They  have 
therefore  prepared  for  the  consideration  of  the  conference  the  draft 
convention  below.  As  in  the  case  of  the  other  subjects  of  the  agenda 
they  have  been  unable  to  make  any  suggestions  as  to  the  modifica¬ 
tions  required  in  the  case  of  those  countries  whose  special  circum¬ 
stances  are  referred  to  in  paragraph  2  of  article  427  of  the  peace 
treaty,  since  replies  from  India,  Japan  and  some  other  countries 
had  not  been  received.  They  include,  however,  as  a  note  to  the 
draft  convention,  a  tentative  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  Oka  (Japan). 

DRAFT  OF  AN  INTERNATIONAL  CONVENTION  TO  PROHIBIT 

THE  NIGHT  WORK  OF  YOUNG  PERSONS  EMPLOYED  IN 

INDUSTRY. 

Article  1.  Young  persons  under  18  years  of  age  shall  not  be 
employed  at  night  in  an  industrial  undertaking  other  than  an 

1  Report  on  the  Employment  of  Women  and  Children  and  the  Bern  Conventions 
of  1906,  prepared  by  the  Organizing  Committee  for  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference,  Washington,  1919.  London,  pp.  52-55. 


undertaking  in  which  only  the  members  of  the  family  are  em¬ 
ployed. 

Industrial  undertakings  shall  be  deemed  to  include  the  follow¬ 
ing— 

(a)  Mines  and  quarries. 

( b )  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  re¬ 
paired,  ornamented,  finished  or  adapted  for  sale,  or  materials  are 
transformed  (including  the  generation  and  transformation  of  elec¬ 
tricity,  shipbuilding,  laundry  work). 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock, 
pier,  canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer, 
drain,  well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  under¬ 
taking,  gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  and  the 
preparation  for  and  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or 
building. 

( d )  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  including 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves  and  at  warehouses, 
but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  national  law  shall  define  the  line  of  division  which  separates 
industry  on  the  one  side  and  commerce  and  agriculture  on  the 
other. 

Art.  2.  The  period  of  rest  during  the  night  provided  for  in 
article  1  shall  comprise  at  least  eleven  consecutive  hours,  which 
shall  include  the  period  between  10  p.  m.  and  5  a.  m. 

In  coal  and  lignite  mines  an  exception  may  be  made  in  regard 
to  the  period  of  rest  provided  in  the  previous  paragraph,  when  the 
interval  between  the  two  periods  of  work  usually  amounts  to  fifteen 
hours,  but  in  no  case  in  which  it  amounts  to  less  than  thirteen  hours. 

In  States  where  nightwork  is  prohibited  by  the  national  legislation 
for  all  workers  employed  in  baking,  the  period  from  9.  p.  m.  to  4  a.  m. 
may  be  substituted  in  that  industry  for  the  period  from  10  p.  m.  to 
5  a.  m.  provided  in  paragraph  1. 

Art.  3.  The  prohibition  of  night  work  for  young  persons  may 
be  suspended — - 

(а)  If  the  State  or  public  interest  requires  it; 

(б)  When  some  emergency  which  the  employer  could  not  control 
or  foresee,  and  which  is  not  of  a  periodical  character,  occurs  to  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  normal  working  of  the  undertaking. 

Art.  4.  The  provisions  of  the  present  convention  are  applicable 
to  girls  of  less  than  18  years  of  age  whenever  these  provisions  involve 
greater  restrictions  on  the  period  of  employment  than  those  pro¬ 
vided  by  the  Bern  convention  on  the  night  work  of  women  of  the 
26th  day  of  September,  1906. 

Art.  5.  In  those  countries  in  which  climatic  conditions,  the 
imperfect  development  of  industrial  organization,  or  other  special 
circumstances  render  the  industrial  efficiency  of  the  workers  sub¬ 
stantially  different,  the  following  modifications  of  the  provisions  of 
this  convention  may  take  effect:  1 

Art.  6.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  be  brought  into 
force  not  later  than  the  1st  July,  1921. 


COMMISSION  ON  UNHEALTHY  PROCESSES. 

Chairman,  Dr.  T.  M.  Legge  (Great  Britain). 

Government  delegates:  Mr.  Pierre  Boulin  (France);  Dr.  .1.  Ca- 
moesas  (Portugal),  substitute  for  Mr.  Barbosa;  Mr.  S.  Fasolato 
(Italy);  Dr.  Desire  Glibert  (Belgium);  Dr.  T.  M.  Legge  (Great 
Britain);  Mr.  Charles  Spinka  (Czecho-Slovakia);  Mr.  G.  J.  van 
Thienen  (Netherlands). 

i  Mr.  Oka  (Japan)  tentatively  suggests  that  the  following  might  be  the  provision 
for  the  States  mentioned  in  the  second  paragraph  of  article  427  of  the  peace  treaty: 

(1)  The  extent  of  the  application  of  this  convention  should  be  the  same  as  that  of 
the  draft  convention  of  Bern  of  1913,  i.e.,  it  should  only  apply  to  industrial  under¬ 
takings  in  which  more  than  10  persons  are  employed. 

(2)  The  age  limit  should  be  15  years  for  the  first  five  years,  and  16  years  thereafter, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Bern  Convention. 


252 


APPENDIX 


Employers’  delegates:  Mr.  E.  Baroni  (Italy);  Mr.  Georges  Dalle- 
magne  (Belgium),  substitute  for  Mr.  Jules  Earlier;  Mr.  Henry 
(France);  Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain);  Mr.  Sanju 
Muto  (Japan);  Mr.  G.  Paus  (Norway);  Mr.  Dietrich  Schindler 
(Switzerland). 

Workers’  delegates:  Mr.  Luis  Araquistain  (Spain);  Mr.  G.  Baas 
(Netherlands);  Mr.  Bideguarray  (France);  Mr.  G.  H.  Stuart- 
Bunning  (Great  Britain);  Mr.  P.  M.  Draper  (Canada);  Mr. 
Conrad  Ilg  (Switzerland);  Mr.  Corneille  Mertens  (Belgium). 

Secretary,  Dr.  J.  B.  Andrews  (United  States). 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  UNHEALTHY  PROCESSES 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  the  conference  the  report  of 
the  commission  appointed  on  the  6th  instant  to  consider  items 
Nos.  3  (c)  and  4  (c)  on  the  agenda,  namely,  the  employment  of 
women  and  children  in  unhealthy  processes. 

The  commission  met  on  four  occasions,  the  7th,  11th,  12th,  and 
13th  of  November,  and  the  resolutions  adopted  are  embodied  in 
this  report.  The  subjects  on  the  agenda  appealed  to  the  members 
of  the  commission  and  led  to  animated  discussions  which,  whether 
raised  by  representatives  of  Governments  or  employers  or  work¬ 
people,  were  invariably  fruitful.  Indeed  the  interest  shown  was 
such  that  the  only  difficulty  I,  as  chairman,  experienced  was  in 
limiting  discussion  to  matters  which  came  within  the  scope  of  the 
agenda,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  employment  of  men  as  well  as 
women  and  children  in  unhealthy  processes.  This  difficulty 
appears  to  have  been  felt  also  by  the  organizing  committee,  as  in 
their  recommendation,  on  page  44  of  their  third  report,  they  urge 
further  inquiry  into  the  question  by  the  International  Labor  Office 
as  it  affects  all  workers,  male  and  female. 

At  the  second  meeting,  on  November  7,  two  propositions  were 
accepted : 

(1)  That  in  view  of  the  necessity  of  defining  exactly  the  meaning 
to  be  attached  to  “young  persons”  the  commission  reserves  this 
term  in  its  proposals  to  persons  aged  more  than  14  completed  years 
and  less  than  18. 

(2)  That  as  there  is  no  sufficient  scientific  proof  of  the  greater 
susceptibility  of  girls  over  boys  to  intoxication  from  industrial 
poisons  or  to  other  industrial  diseases,  no  sex  distinction  is  called 
for  in  regard  to  the  protective  measures  to  be  applied  to  young 
persons. 

The  report  of  the  organizing  committee  details  the  differing 
protection  afforded  on  one  and  another  country  according  to  sex 
and  the  greater  disability  placed  on  the  female  sex  by  a  higher 
age  of  admission  in  certain  countries. 

These  resolutions  make  for  clarity,  and  the  mover,  Dr.  Gilbert 
(Belgium)  is  a  medical  rqan  with  the  widest  possible  knowledge  of 
the  subject.  The  only  reservation  made  to  this  adoption  came 
from  M.  Bidegarray  (France),  who  insisted  that,  seeing  the  age  of 
female  young  persons  was  a  period  fixed  in  France  up  to  the  age  of 
21,  were  this  reduced  to  18  a  gap  of  three  years  would  be  left  during 
which  protection  might  be  withdrawn.  Obviously  any  legislation 
which  may  ensue  would  take  account  of  this  point. 

The  commission  felt  embarrassed  by  the  absence  of  any  definition 
of  what  constitutes  an  “unhealthy  process,”  and  as  the  time  at 
their  disposal  was  so  short  a  subcommission  was  appointed,  consist¬ 
ing  of  Dr.  D.  Glibert  (Belgium),  Mr.  P.  Boulin  (France),  Dr.  S. 
Miall  (Great  Britain),  with  Lieut.  Wauters  (Belgium),  assistant  sec¬ 
retary,  and  myself,  to  consider  what  typical  unhealthy  processes 
could  most  usefully  be  considered  by  the  commission  and  to  make 
recommendations  thereon.  This  subcommission  did  some  hard 
work  at  its  various  sittings,  of  which  the  recommendations  which 
follow  are  mainly  the  outcome.  They  urged  the  commission  to 
limit  discussion  to  (1)  intoxication  by  lead;  (2)  infection  from 
anthrax;  and  (3)  intoxication  by  carbonic  oxide  gas. 

All  three  affect  men,  women,  and  children  in  industry,  and  the 
general  principles  of  exclusion  or  limitation  of  women  and  children 
in  them  will  hold  good  for  practically  all  other  unhealthy  processes. 


What  is,  then,  the  general  principle  which  should  be  applied  in  the 
case  of  women?  That  arrived  at  is  one  which  will  probably  com¬ 
mend  itself  to  all,  namely,  only  where  interference  with  the  function 
of  maternity  can  be  shown  to  exist  should  women’s  employment  be 
made  a  bar,  and  lead  has  been  proved  medically  to  be  the  chief  if 
not  the  only  intoxication  in  which  this  danger  is  present.  Apply¬ 
ing  this  principle,  therefore,  to  lead  industries  the  commission 
passed  unanimously  the  following  resolution: 

(a)  Plumbism  (Women;. 

Although  absolute  proof  is  lacking  that  women  are  considerably  more  susceptible 
than  men  (the  figures  given  in  the  English  statistics  seem  to  show  that  women  are 
proportionally  more  often  attacked  in  this  respect),  her  role  as  mother  makes  it  neces¬ 
sary  to  consider  special  precautions. 

Consequently  we  considered  first  the  employment  of  women  in  industries  and 
processes  exposing  to  intoxication  and  the  processes  from  which  exclusion  of  women 
should  be  absolute. 

We  reviewed  successively  the  metallurgy  of  lead  and  processes  ancillary  thereto, 
secondly  the  manufacture  of  the  salts  of  lead,  and  thirdly  use  of  the  latter.  The 
conclusions  arrived  at  are  submitted  as  follows: 

PROHIBITION  OF  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN 

The  prohibition  of  the  employment  of  women  is  advised  in  the  following  processes: 

(a)  Furnace  work  in  the  reduction  of  zinc  and  lead  ores. 

(f>)  Processes  in  the  manipulation,  preparation  and  reduction  of  ashes  containing 
lead,  and  the  desilverizing  of  lead. 

(c)  In  melting  on  a  large  scale  lead  and  old  zinc. 

( d )  In  the  manufacture  of  solder  and  alloy  containing  more  than  10  per  cent  lead. 

(e)  In  the  manufacture  of  litharge,  massicot  minium,  white  lead,  orange  lead, 
sulphate,  chromate  and  silicate  (frit)  of  lead. 

(/)  In  certain  operations  in  the  manufacture  and  repair  of  electric  accumulators 
(especially  mixing  and  pasting). 

(j)  In  the  cleaning  of  workrooms  where  the  above  processes  are  carried  on. 

In  order  to  overcome  the  difficulties  which  may  arise  in  certain  circumstances  of 
scarcity  of  male  labor,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the  prohibition  of  the  employment  of 
women  in  the  above  specified  processes  should  be  made  the  subject  of  regulation  even 
in  the  countries  which,  up  to  the  present,  have  never  employed  women  in  these 
processes. 

REGULATION  OF  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN. 

So  far  as  processes  involve  the  use  of  salts  of  lead  where  the  employment  of  women 
is  permitted,  we  consider  that,  apart  from  technical  requirements,  such  as  localized 
ventilation,  cleanliness  of  tools  and  workrooms,  the  following  additional  precautions 
should  be  imposed: 

(a)  Notification  of  and  compensation  for  all  cases. 

(b)  Periodic  medical  examination  of  the  persons  employed. 

(c)  Provision  of  sufficient  and  suitable  cloak-room,  washing,  and  mess-room  accom¬ 
modations  and  of  special  protective  clothing. 

(<f)  Prohibition  of  bringing  food  and  drink  into  the  workrooms. 

W e  are  of  the  opinion  that  where  soluble  salts  of  lead  could  be  replaced  by  those 
of  a  nontoxic  nature  stringent  regulations  should  be  enforced  where  noxious  sub¬ 
stances  continue  to  be  used. 

In  regard  to  the  standards  as  to  soluble  salts  of  lead,  the  commission,  so  far  as  the 
pottery  industry  is  concerned,  is  satisfied  with  the  definition  contained  in  the  British 
and  Dutch  regulations.  In  other  industries  the  commission  proposes  to  adopt  as  a 
basis  for  definition  and  standard  in  future  regulations  the  following  formula:  A  com¬ 
pound  of  lead  shah  be  considered  as  soluble  if  it  contains  not  more  than  5  per  cent  of 
its  weight  estimated  as  metallic  lead  soluble  in  a  0.25  per  cent  solution  of  hydrochloric 
acid. 

(b)  Plumbism  (Young  Persons). 

In  regard  to  young  persons  the  commission  considers  that  the  protection  deemed 
necessary  for  women  in  the  processes  enumerated  above  are  to  apply  equally  to 
young  persons  because  of  their  ignorance  and  carelessness  and  to  allow  for  their 
physical  development. 

The  commission  is,  moreover,  of  opinion  that  the  question  of  further  exclusion  or 
regulation  aflecting  young  persons  might  usefully  become  the  object  of  later  study, 
the  conclusions  of  which  would  be  presented  at  the  next  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference. 

In  illustration  of  the  reasons  for  these  recommendations,  the  com¬ 
mission  had  presented  to  them  charts  showing  graphically  the  figures 
in  Appendix  V  (c)  of  the  organizing  committee’s  report.  Briefly 
this  effect  in  general  is  that  women’s  employment  in  industries  (a) 
where  lead  is  used  in  the  pure  metallic  solid  form  either  alone  or  in 
alloys  (e.  g.,  soldering,  letterpress  printing,  brass  polishing),  will  be 
unrestricted;  (6)  where  fumes  and  dust  are  incidental  to  the  nature 
of  the  processes  carried  on  and  can  not  sufficiently,  in  the  present 
state  of  knowledge,  be  controlled  (class  1),  so  as  to  prevent  the  risk 
of  derangement  of  the  uterine  function  they  will  be  excluded;  and 
(c)  where  fumes  and  dust  are  incidental  but  can  be  sufficiently  con- 


APPENDIX 


253 


trolled  so  as  to  minimize  the  particular  danger  (class  2)  they  will  be 
employed  subject  to  adoption  of  the  necessary  precautions.  Exclu¬ 
sion  of  women  from  class  1  is  dictated  by  application  of  the  principle 
enunciated  and  not  at  all  by  reason  of  the  fact  that,  at  the  present 
time,  practically  no  women  are  employed  in  class  1  (a),  ( b ),  (c),  ( d ), 
and  (e),  owing  to  the  heavy  nature  of  the  processes  carried  on. 

Adoption  of  the  principle  may  affect  the  view  of  certain  Govern¬ 
ments  as  to  the  attitude  assumed  hitherto  in  regard  to  this  question 
as,  for  example,  France  and  Argentina  (Appendix  V  (a)  and  (6)),  to 
which  more  than  one  reference  is  made  in  the  organizing  committee’s 
report. 

This  is  the  place  to  refer  to  a  motion  proposed  by  Mr.  Bidegarray 
(France)  that  the  commission  concern  itself  with  the  prohibition  of 
the  use  of  white  lead  in  house-painting  operations.  The  terms  of 
the  agenda  made  it  impossible  to  allow  this,  but  nevertheless  I 
express  the  general  feeling  of  the  commission  in  pointing  out  the  im¬ 
portance  of  the  subject  and  saying  how  action  has  already  been 
taken  in  certain  countries  and  the  subject  been  studied  in  others. 
Consequently  the  commission  was  of  opinion  the  subject  should  be 
referred  to  the  International  Labor  Office  to  be  placed  on  the  agenda 
at  the  next  conference. 

Mercury. 

Analogous  to  the  question  of  possible  disuse  of  white  lead  in  house¬ 
painting  operations  is  that  of  disuse  of  nitrate  of  mercury  in  felt 
hat  making.  For  many  years  past  a  substitute  for  this  industrial 
poison,  to  the  baneful  effects  of  which  in  hatters  furriers  processes 
many  women  and  young  persons  are  exposed,  has  been  sought.  The 
commission  therefore  resolved: 

That  in  view  of  the  fact  that  experiments  in  France  appear  to  have  been  entirely 
successful  in  showing  that  the  use  of  nitrate  of  mercury  in  the  process  of  “Carrotting” 
rabbit  fur  (i.  e. ,  brushing  the  fur  with  a  solution  of  the  salt  in  question)  is  unnecessary, 
the  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  question  of  prohibiting  the  use  of  mercury 
in  hatters  furriers  processes  should  be  submitted  to  the  International  Labor  Office 
with  the  object  of  having  it  placed  on  the  agenda  at  the  next  International  Conference. 

Carbonic-Oxide  Gas. 

In  recent  years  there  has  been  great  extension  of  the  manufacture 
and  use  of  water  gas  and  other  gases  of  a  similar  nature  (suction  gas, 
power  gas,  producer  gas,  blast-furnace  gas,  etc.)  for  driving  gas 
engines,  heating  furnaces  and  boilers  in  factories,  welding,  soldering, 
and  other  industrial  purposes.  The  particular  danger  associated 
with  all  these  gases  is  that  of  poisoning  by  carbonic  oxide,  which  is 
present  in  them  in  a  proportion  varying  from  10  to  30  per  cent. 
Danger  to  the  workman  is  present  from  inhalation  of  air  containing 
only  0.25  per  cent  of  the  gas.  On  the  motion  of  Dr.  Glibert  (Bel¬ 
gium),  therefore,  the  commission  resolved: 

As  carbonic  oxide  gas  is  the  poison  most  frequently  encountered  in  industry  and 
the  danger  from  it  becomes  greater  daily  owing  to  its  increasing  use  in  power  gas 
plants,  etc.,  the  International  Labor  Office  should  place  on  the  agenda  of  the  next 
conference  the  question  ol  the  study  of  the  dangers  arising  from  this  gas,  the  symp¬ 
toms  (acute  and  chronic)  it  gives  rise  to  and  the  means  of  safeguarding  the  workers 
from  the  effects. 

The  commission  also  felt  called  upon  to  express  certain  general 
considerations  affecting  the  questions  referred  to  it,  as  follows: 

It  should  be  referred  to  the  International  Labor  Office  to  draw  up  a  list  of  the  princi¬ 
pal  processes  to  be  considered  as  unhealthy,  and  that,  in  view  of  the  recommendations 
made  on  pages  42  and  43  of  the  English  edition  of  the  report  of  the  organizing  com¬ 
mittee  on  the  employment  of  women  and  children  in  unhealthy  processes  which 
necessarily  presuppose  medical  knowledge,  a  health  section  should  be  formed  in  the 
International  Labor  Office  which  would  keep  in  touch  with  the  medical  departments 
of  the  Government  offices  charged  with  the  application  of  factory  laws.  Further 
iollowing  up  the  wish  formally  expressed  by  all  the  members  represented,  the  com¬ 
mittee  is  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  the  International  Labor  Conference  suggesting 
to  the  Governments  which  have  not  already  set  up  a  medical  organization  of  the  kind 
that  they  should  make  provision  for  a  service  specially  charged  with  the  duty  of 
safeguarding  the  health  of  the  workers,  in  addition  to  a  system  of  efficient  factory 
inspection. 

Emphasis  should  be  laid  on  the  fact  that  the  second  paragraph  of 
the  above  resolution  was  a  spontaneous  expression  of  opinion  emanat¬ 
ing  from  representatives  of  the  workers  and  employers  alike,  and 
was  not  prompted  by  any  government  representative. 


Finally,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted  reiterating  and  ap¬ 
plying  generally  the  recommendation  already  made  in  regard  to 
notification  of  plumbism  and  compensation  in  all  cases. 

The  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  regretting  that  it  has  not  been  able  to 
cover  all  subjects  coming  under  this  classification,  expresses  the  hope  that  medical 
inspection  to  safeguard  the  health  of  the  workers  will  be  instituted  in  all  countries; 
that  disability  due  to  occupational  diseases,  like  disability  resulting  from  industrial 
accidents  will  be  compensated;  and  that  all  such  cases  of  occupational  disease  will 
be  notified  by  physicians. 

All  the  resolutions  referred  to  hitherto  carry  out  the  recommenda¬ 
tion  expressed  on  pages  44  and  59  of  the  third  report  of  the  organiz¬ 
ing  committee,  “that  the  International  Labor  Office  be  instructed  to 
continue  their  inquiries  into  the  question  as  it  affects  all  workers, 
male  and  female,  and  to  prepare  a  report  and  recommendations  for 
the  next  and  subsequent  conferences.” 

Anthrax. 

There  remains  one  matter  on  which  the  commission  felt  it  was 
justified  in  asking  the  conference  to  proceed  more  directly  by  way 
of  a  draft  international  convention,  as  on  the  lines  stated  in  article  19 
of  the  labor  section  of  the  peace  treaty.  This  concerns  the  disin¬ 
fection  of  wool  to  guard  against  the  danger  of  anthrax.  In  an  ap¬ 
pendix  to  this  report  I  have  outlined  the  stage  that  this  question 
has  reached  so  far  as  Great  Britain  is  concerned,  and  need  not  there¬ 
fore  refer  to  it  in  detail  here.  The  resolution  of  the  committee  is 
as  follows: 

In  view  of  the  world-wide  prevalence  of  anthrax  among  certain  kinds  of  animals, 
and  considering  that  workers  handling  wool,  horsehair,  and  hides  and  skins  of  ani¬ 
mals  which  have  died  of  anthrax  in  far  distant  countries,  can  and  sometimes  do  con¬ 
tract  the  disease,  it  is  a  matter  of  urgency  that  international  action  be  taken  as  the 
only  means  of  preventing  the  spread  of  this  disease  from  animals  to  man. 

And  seeing  that  it  has  been  established  that  disinfection  of  wool  containing  anthrax 
spores  can  actually  be  effected,  the  commission  begs  the  International  Conference 
to  intervene  by  means  of  a  convention  requiring  the  disinfection  of  wool  from  coun¬ 
tries  recognized  as  particularly  dangerous  or,  if  this  is  not  possible,  then  at  the  port 
of  arrival. 

So  far  as  horsehair  for  the  manufacture  of  brushes  is  concerned,  disinfection  in  the 
factory,  although  not  so  satisfactory  as  disinfection  in  the  country  of  origin,  is  pos¬ 
sible  and  should  be  required.  For  horsehair  intended  for  weaving  or  the  manufac¬ 
ture  of  mattresses,  as  well  as  for  the  handling  of  the  hides  and  skins  of  every  kind, 
the  commission  expresses  the  hope  that  researches,  similar  to  those  of  the  departmental 
committee  of  Great  Britain  on  the  prevention  of  anthrax  in  wool  and  hair,  may  lead 
before  long  to  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  problem.  Meanwhile,  the  committee 
strongly  urges  on  the  countries  interested  applications  of  a  medical  nature,  such  as 
early  recognition  and  treatment  which  would  have  for  its  effect  diminution  in  mor¬ 
tality  from  anthrax. 

(Signed)  T.  M.  Legge, 

Chairman. 

J.  B.  Andrews, 
Secretary. 


Appendix. 

ANTHRAX  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

Anthrax  is  a  fatal  disease  affecting  certain  animals,  which  may  be 
conveyed  from  them  to  man  by  the  handling  of  hides,  wool,  horse¬ 
hair,  or  bristles  of  animals  which  have  died  of  the  disease.  (Anthrax 
in  man  has  also  been  traced  occasionally  to  the  unloading  of  other 
cargoes,  such  as  grain.) 

The  germs  of  the  disease  (anthrax  spores)  are  found  in  the  dirt 
and  dust  on  the  material,  and  may  remain  active  for  years,  but  even 
material  which  looks  quite  clean  may  harbor  them. 

In  this  country  and  Australia,  anthrax  among  animals  is  rare, 
but  in  Asia,  Russia,  and  in  some  other  parts  of  the  world,  the  disease 
is  common,  and  infected  material  is  often  shipped  to  British  ports. 

The  disease  is  communicated  to  man  sometimes  by  breathing  or 
swallowing  the  dust  from  the  material,  but  much  more  often  by  the 
poison  lodging  in  some  break  of  the  skin,  such  as  a  fresh  scratch,  a 
cut,  or  a  scratched  pimple,  or  by  dirty  hands  or  finger  nails  carrying 
the  poison  to  the  spot.  This  happens  more  readily  on  the  uncov¬ 
ered  parts  of  the  body,  the  hand,  arm,  face,  and  most  frequently  of 
all  on  the  neck. 

Anthrax  cases  increased  noticeably  during  the  war,  but  deaths 
from  it  fortunately  not  in  the  same  proportion.  The  following 


254 


APPENDIX 


table  comparing  the  two  five-year  periods,  1909-1913,  and  ln14- 
1918,  brings  out  the  industries  in  which  increase  has  been  shown: 


Product. 

1909- 

-1913 

1914-1918. 

Cases. 

Deaths . 

Cases. 

Deaths . 

165 

26 

242 

31 

Horsehair . 

34 

5 

20 

6 

Hides  and  skins . 

79 

11 

94 

11 

Other  industries . 

10 

3 

18 

3 

Total . 

288 

45 

374 

51 

Anthrax  in  wool. — During  the  past  40  years  effort  has  been  made 
to  control  the  danger  to  the  operatives  from  anthrax  in  infected 
wool-  and  hair  coming  from  southern,  central,  and  western  Asia, 
South  Africa,  and  Peru,  by  attempting,  among  other  things,  to 
remove  dust  by  downward  exhaust  ventilation,  separating  out  fallen 
fleeces  and  blood-stained  material  and  warning  the  workers  of  the 
need  for  early  treatment,  by  means  of  illustrated  placards  showing 
the  nature  of  the  disease.  Despite  this,  although  the  mortality  rate 
has  been  lessened,  probably  as  the  result  of  earlier  and  better  meth¬ 
ods  of  treatment,  the  increase  in  the  number  of  cases  during  the 
period  of  the  war  is  very  noticeable.  The  reason  why  regulations 
in  the  woolen  and  worsted  industries  have  failed  of  effect  is  that 
anthrax  caused  as  industrial  poisoning  is,  by  a  known  chemical 
compound  or  other  inanimate  substances  used  in  manufacture,  but 
by  a  living  organism  accidentally  attached  to  the  material  handled 
and  giving  no  evidence  of  its  presence.  All  the  remedies  outlined 
above  have  been  directed  to  treating  the  effect  and  not  the  cause. 

Onlv  two  ways  of  getting  at  the  cause  are  possible — either  to 
prevent  animals  from  contracting  anthrax  or  to  destroy  the  spores 
before  the  fleece  or  hair  is  handled.  No  one  can  entertain  hope 
that  the  nomadic  tribes  in  central  Asia  will  take  steps  to  stamp  out 
the  disease  in  animals.  On  the  other  hand,  if  disinfection  were 
practicable,  although  the  problem  appalls  by  its  magnitude,  manu¬ 
facturing  countries  would  try  and  see  that  it  was  done  in  the  case  of 
the  dangerous  classes  of  wool  coming  from  central  and  southern  Asia. 
Australian  and  New  Zealand  wool  is  fortunately  so  free  from  risk 
that  disinfection  is  not  necessary.  Steam,  while  destroying  anthrax 
spores,  destroys  the  wool  for  manufacturing  purposes.  Researches, 
however,  carried  out  during  the  war  in  Bradford  by  a  disinfection 
subcommittee  of  the  anthrax  committee  on  which  the  expert  mem¬ 
bers  were  the  secretary,  Mr.  G.  Elmhirst  Duckering,  himself  a 
skilled  chemist,  and  Dr.  F.  W.  Euric-h,  bacteriologist  of  the  anthrax 
investigation  board  of  Bradford,  showed,  after  some  130  experiments, 
that  wool  containing  highly  infected  blood  clots  could  be  rendered 
sterile  by  treatment  involving,  first  agitation  for  20  minutes  in 
warm  water  containing  soap  solution  and  a  little  sodium  carbonate, 
assisted  by  squeezing  through  rollers,  subsequently  treating  the 
wool  in  a  bath  of  warm  water  containing  2\  per  cent  formaldehyde, 
again  assisted  by  squeezing  through  rollers,  and  finally  drying  in  a 
current  of  hot  air. 

To  carry  this  scheme  out  powers  for  compulsory  disinfection  and 
the  erection  of  Government  disinfection  stations  are  necessary, 
and  legislation  for  this  purpose  has  been  taken.  An  act  has  been 
passed  for  the  prohibition,  by  order  in  council,  of  the  importation 
of  goods  infected  with  anthrax,  and  authorizes  a  Secretary  of  State 
to  arrange  for  the  disinfection  of  infected  goods.  Money  has  been 
voted  for  the  erection  of  a  trial  disinfecting  station  at  Liverpool  for 
the  disinfection  of  the  most  dangerously  infected  wool  and  goat  hair. 


SUGGESTIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COM¬ 
MITTEE  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  ACTION  REGARDING  EMPLOYMENT 
IN  UNHEALTHY  PROCESSES.1 

Prospective  Action. 

If  it  be  agreed,  as  in  principle  has  already  been  admitted,  that 
the  conditions  in  unhealthy  trades  are  a  proper  field  for  international 
action,  especially  where  women  and  young  persons  are  concerned, 

1  Report  on  the  Employment  of  Women  and  Children  and  the  Bern  Conventions 
of  1906,  prepared  by  the  organizing  committee  for  the  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference.  Washington,  1919.  London,  pp.  42-44 


it  follows  that  that  line  of  action  is  to  be  preferred  which  promises 
the  most  fruitful  results  for  industry  and  the  worker  in  industry 
alike.  It  seems  clear  that  this  will  be  found,  not  in  a  more  general 
or  rigorous  exclusion  of  special  classes  of  workers  from  certain  trades 
and  processes,  but  in  a  successful  endeavor  to  make  these  safe  and 
harmless  for  all  comers. 

Here  is  a  great  task,  laborious  as  well  as  lofty,  demanding  in  most 
instances  time  for  inquiry  and  experiment.  While  this  preliminary 
part  of  the  work  can  and  should  be  carried  out  by  each  State  within 
its  own  borders,  working  through  its  own  officials  and  laboratories, 
the  work  as  a  whole  would  receive  a  strong  stimulus  if.  when  the 
International  Labor  Office  is  set  up,  there  were  constituted  within  it 
a  branch  charged  with  the  duty  of  encouraging  all  study  and  experi¬ 
ment,  having  as  their  end  the  elimination  of  the  dangers  attending 
employment  in  unhealthy  processes.  It  should  be  a  principal  duty 
of  that  office  to  ascertain  the  existing  industrial  conditions  in  the 
different  countries,  to  stimulate  research  with  a  view  to  their  im¬ 
provement,  and,  where  it  may  be  necessary,  to  undertake  research 
itself.  The  labor  laws  of  the  States  taking  part  in  the  International 
Conference,  "in  so  far  as  they  apply  to  dangerous  and  unhealthy 
trades,  are  at  present  extremely  unequal  in  scope,  and  at  times 
inconsistent  in  principle;  the  importance  of  extending  their  range 
where  this  is  too  narrow,  and  of  giving  them  a  common  orientation 
on  agreed  lines,  is  obviously  of  great  importance,  alike  on  humane 
and  on  economic  grounds.  A  coordinating  international  body  could 
do  much  to  achieve  this  desirable  end. 

It  might  also,  from  time  to  time,  redirect  the  attention  of  Govern¬ 
ments  to  problems  of  protection  attacked  but  left  unsolved  by  earlier 
inquiry  (the  occurrence  of  scrotal  epithelioma  or  “pitch  cancer,  ”  in 
makers  of  patent  fuel  will  serve  as  an  illustration  of  cases  in  mind). 
Science  breaks  fresh  ground  continually.  The  problem  which 
appeared  insoluble  a  few  years  ago  may  have  its  unsuspected  solu¬ 
tion  waiting,  ready-made,  for  it  to-day,  won  by  researches  in  other 
parts  of  the  field  of  knowledge;  or  the  inquiry  baffled  in  one  country 
may  be  transferred  with  success  to  another. 

Again,  where  the  most  notable  gains  have  been  made,  interna¬ 
tional  action  becomes  necessary  to  place  them  at  the  service  of 
humanity  at  large.  Here  an  illustration  is  at  hand  in  the  newly 
devised  British  measures  for  dealing  with  anthrax  infection. 

Immediate  Action. 

In  respect  of  the  questions  touched  on  in  the  previous  paragraphs, 
the  necessity  of  time  for  inquiry  and  discussion  before  proceeding  to 
international  regulations  may  be  granted.  It  does  not,  however, 
follow  that  there  are  no  questions  of  this  kind  ripe  for  common  action 
without  delay.  Certain  steps  in  the  promotion  of  means  for  diminish¬ 
ing  effectively  the  risks  of  employment  in  unhealthy  processes  could 
be  taken  at  once. 

First,  a  comparative  study  might  be  made  by  the  International 
Labor  Office  of  the  measures  established  in  different  countries  to  deal 
with  unhealthy  trades,  the  methods  of  administering  them  and  their 
results.  This  would  bring  to  notice  any  defects  in  these  measures, 
any  special  points  of  excellence  which  could  be  recommended  for 
general  adoption,  and  the  questions  on  which  further  investigation 
was  needed.  Where  the  need  of  continued  research  was  shown,  this 
could  be  organized  by  the  International  Labor  Office. 

Again,  agreements  might  be  promoted  for  putting  into  immediate 
force  certain  well-established  principles,  such  as  the  prohibition  of 
the  use  of  raw  or  unfritted  lead  in  manufacture  and  the  carrying  ou 
of  unhealthy  processes  in  domestic  premises,  where  it  is  impossible 
to  apply  necessary  safeguards.  The  present  exemption  from  regu¬ 
lations  in  some  countries  of  factories  and  workshops  employing  less 
than  a  certain  number  of  workers  might  also  with  great  advantage 
form  the  subject  of  early  agreements  with  a  view  to  its  abolition. 
Experience  shows  that  in  small  factories  and  workshops,  owing  to 
their  frequently  faulty  construction  and  poor  equipment,  the  worker 
engaged  in  an  unhealthy  process  is  often  exposed  to  greater  risks 
than  in  large  ones,  and  in  such  establishments,  therefore,  stands 
in  at  least  equal  need  of  the  protection  which  can  be  given  by  law. 
So  long  as  the  smaller  class  of  work  places  remains  exempted  frorc 


APPENDIX 


255 


the  obligation  to  adopt  the  prescribed  safeguards  for  health,  it  is 
hopeless  to  anticipate  the  stamping  out  of  industrial  disease,  espe¬ 
cially  in  those  countries  and  trades  where  the  work  place  employing 
a  small  personnel  abounds. 

In  the  case  of  anthrax  common  action  will  be  needed  to  control 
the  importation  of  infected  wool,  hides  and  skins,  and  hair,  in  order 
that  the  means  now  proved  efficacious  for  disinfection  before  the 
materials  are  handled  in  the  factory  may  be  applied  for  general  pre¬ 
vention  of  anthrax. 

RECOMMENDATION. 

The  organizing  committee  expresses  the  view  that  unhealthy  proc¬ 
esses  can  and  ought  to  be  made  the  subject  of  regulations  based  on 
the  principles  which  the  general  experience  of  the  different  indus¬ 
trial  countries  has  shown  or  may  show  to  be  effective.  Some  of  these 
have  already  been  indicated  in  general  terms  above,  e.  g.,  prevention 
of  dangerous  dusts  and  fumes  entering  the  air  of  the  workroom, 
provisions  for  personal  cleanliness,  substitution  of  harmless  ma¬ 
terials,  etc.  The  processes  to  be  dealt  with  are  extremely  compli¬ 
cated.  The  regulations  in  force  in  the  different  countries  are  elab¬ 
orate  and  the  committee  has  not  had  sufficient  time  or  information 
to  prepare  a  satisfactory  scheme.  It  accordingly  recommends  that 
the  International  Labor  Office  be  instructed  to  continue  its  in¬ 
quiries  into  the  question  as  it  affects  all  workers,  male  and  female, 
and  to  prepare  a  report  and  recommendations  for  the  next  and  sub¬ 
sequent  conferences. 


CONCLUSIONS  AND  SUGGESTIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE 

ON  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN  AND  YOUNG  PERSONS  IN 

UNHEALTHY  PROCESSES.i 

It  seems  probable  that  many  of  the  more  sweeping  exclusions 
shown  in  the  tables  were  originally  based  on  an  unhopeful  view  of 
the  future  conditions  of  industry  which  the  experience  of  the  last 
few  years  has  done  much  to  dissipate.  That  experience  encourages 
the  belief  that  trades  and  processes  which  were  at  one  time  inevitably 
injurious  to  health  may  be  made  perfectly  safe  and  wholesome  by 
the  observance  of  proper  precautions,  or  the  substitution  of  different 
elements  in  manufacture.  This  being  so,  it  should  become  possible 
to  exchange  exclusion  for  regulation  in  certain  instances,  and  it  can 
not  be  doubted  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  industry  and  employ¬ 
ment  this  is  most  desirable.  To  take  an  example:  the  manufacture 
of  scientific  instruments  offers  the  opportunity  of  a  skilled  career  to 
the  learner,  and  many  of  the  processes  are  of  a  light  nature,  well 
suited  to  the  capacities  of  young  persons,  whether  boys  or  girls.  But 
some  of  these  involve  the  use  of  mercury  and  in  many  countries 
young  persons  are  consequently  excluded  from  them.  At  the  present 
stage  of  efficiency  reached  by  protective  measures,  it  should  be  possi¬ 
ble  to  remove  this  bar  of  exclusion,  and  under  careful  regulation  to 
open  a  fresh  and  promising  field  of  labor  to  those  j  ust  entering  industry. 

There  remain  certain  groups  of  industries  and  processes  which,  for 
the  present  at  least,  can  not  be  made  wholly  safe.  Research  and 
experience  have  shown  that  in  the  most  important  of  these — the  lead 
group— there  is  a  special  risk  for  young  persons,  and  that  this  risk  is, 
in  some  instances,  greater  or  extends  to  a  higher  age,  in  the  case  of 
girls  than  in  that  of  boys:  The  advantage  of  arriving  at  a  general 
standard — which  would  not  necessarily  be  the  same  for  both  sexes — for 
the  age  of  exclusion  (in  connection  with  an  equally  general  standard 
of  precaution  and  protection  in  the  workplace)  is  manifest,  and 
means  of  attaining  this  end  might,  with  great  profit,  form  the  subject 
of  study  and  inquiry  in  the  International  Labor  Office. 

RECOMMENDATION. 

The  recommendation  which  the  committee  has  made  in  regard  to 
the  employment  of  women  in  unhealthy  processes  for  further  inves¬ 
tigation  and  report  by  the  International  Labor  Office  covers  all 
classes  of  workers,  including  young  persons.  It  accordingly  does 
not  think  it  necessary  to  make  any  special  recommendation  under 
the  heading  of  this  section  of  the  report. 

'Report  on  the  Employment  of  Women  and  Children  and  the  Bern  Conventions 
of  1906  prepared  by  the  Organizing  Committee  for  the  International  Labor  Confer¬ 
ence,  Washington,  1919.  London,  pp.  58,  59. 


CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE  ON  THE  USE 
OF  WHITE  PHOSPHORUS.' 

The  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  conference  should  recom¬ 
mend  adhesion  to  the  convention  to  all  States  members  of  the 
League.  The  text  of  the  convention  is  as  follows: 

International  Convention  on  the  Subject  of  the  Prohibition 

of  the  Use  of  White  (Yellow)  Phosphorus  in  the  Manufac¬ 
ture  of  Matches,  Concluded  at  Bern  in  1906. 

Article  1.  The  High  Contracting  Parties  bind  themselves  to  pro¬ 
hibit  in  their  respective  territories  the  manufacture,  importation 
and  sale  of  matches  which  contain  white  (yellow)  phosphorus. 

Art.  2.  It  is  incumbent  upon  each  of  the  contracting  States  to 
take  the  administrative  measures  necessary  to  insure  the  strict 
execution  of  the  terms  of  the  present  convention  within  their 
respective  territories. 

Each  Government  shall  communicate  to  the  others,  through  the 
diplomatic  channel,  the  laws  and  regulations  which  exist  or  shall 
hereafter  come  into  force  in  their  country  with  regard  to  the  subject 
matter  of  the  present  convention,  as  well  as  the  reports  on  the  manner 
in  which  the  said  laws  and  regulations  are  applied. 

Art.  3.  The  present  convention  shall  only  apply  to  a  colony, 
possession,  or  protectorate  when  a  notice  to  this  effect  shall  have  been, 
given  on  its  behalf  by  the  Government  of  the  mother  country  to  the 
Swiss  Federal  Council. 

Art.  4.  The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified,  and  the  ratifica¬ 
tions  deposited  with  the  Swiss  Federal  Council  by  the  31st  Decem¬ 
ber,  1908,  at  the  latest. 

A  record  of  the  deposit  shall  be  drawn  up,  of  which  one  certified 
copy  shall  be  transmitted  to  each  of  the  contracting  States  through 
the  diplomatic  channel. 

The  present  convention  shall  come  into  force  three  years  after  the 
date  on  which  the  record  of  the  deposit  is  closed. 

Art.  5.  The  States  nonsignatories  to  the  present  convention  shall 
be  allowed  to  declare  their  adhesion  by  an  act  addressed  to  the  Swiss 
Federal  Council,  who  will  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  each  of  the  other 
contracting  States. 

The  time  limit  laid  down  in  Article  4  for  the  coming  into  force  of 
the  present  Convention  is  extended  in  the  case  of  the  nonsignatory 
States,  as  well  as  of  their  colonies,  possessions,  or  protectorates,  to  5 
years,  counting  from  the  date  of  the  notification  of  their  adhesion. 

Art.  6.  It  shall  not  be  possible  for  the  signatory  States,  or  the 
States,  colonies,  possessions,  or  protectorates  who  may  subsequently 
adhere,  to  denounce  the  present,  convention  before  the  expiration  of 
5  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  record  of  the  deposit  of  ratifica¬ 
tions  is  closed. 

Thenceforward  the  convention  may  be  denounced  from  year  to 
year. 

The  denunciation  will  only  take  effect  after  the  lapse  of  one  year 
from  the  time  when  written  notice  has  been  given  to  the  Swiss  Fed¬ 
eral  Council  by  the  Government  concerned,  or  in  the  case  of  a 
colony,  possession,  or  protectorate,  by  the  Government  of  the  mother 
country;  the  Federal  Council  shall  communicate  the  denunciation 
immediately  to  the  Governments  of  each  of  the  other  contracting 
States. 

The  denunciation  shall  only  be  operative  as  regards  the  State, 
colony,  possession,  or  protectorate  on  whose  behalf  it  has  been 
notified. 

In  witness  whereof  the  plenipotentiaries  have  signed  the  present 
Convention. 

Done  at  Bern  this  26th  day  of  September,  1906,  in  a  single  copy 
which  shall  be  kept  in  the  archives  of  the  Swiss  Federation,  and  one 
copy  of  which  duly  certified  shall  be  delivered  to  each  of  the  con- 
tracting  Powers  through  the  diplomatic  channel. 

'Idem,  pp.  60-62. 


DRAFT  CONVENTIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  ADOPTED  BY  THE  CONFERENCE 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  LIMITING  THE  HOURS  OF  WORK  IN  INDUS¬ 
TRIAL  UNDERTAKINGS  TO  EIGHT  IN  THE  DAY  AND  FORTY- 

EIGHT  IN  THE  WEEK. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, 
and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  the  “application  of  the  principle  of  the  8-hours  day  or 
the  48-hours  week,”  which  is  the  first  item  in  the  agenda  for  the 
Washington  meeting  of  the  conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  draft  international  convention, 

Adopts  the  following  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  in  accordance 
with  the  labor  part  of  the  Treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919, 
and  of  the  Treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  10  September,  1919: 

Article  1. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “industrial  under¬ 
taking”  includes  particularly: 

(a)  Mines,  quarries,  and  other  works  for  the  extraction  of  minerals 
from  the  earth. 

( b )  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  cleaned, 
repaired,  ornamented,  finished,  adapted  for  sale,  broken  up  or  de¬ 
molished,  or  in  which  materials  are  transformed;  including  ship¬ 
building  and  the  generation,  transformation,  and  transmission  of  elec¬ 
tricity  or  motive  power  of  any  kind. 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  as  well  as  the 
preparation  for  or  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  structure. 

(d)  The  transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road,  rail,  sea  or  inland 
waterway,  including  the  handling  of  gocds  at  docks,  quays,  wharves 
or  warehouses,  but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  provisions  relative  to  transport  by  sea  and  on  inland  waterways 
shall  be  determined  by  a  special  conference  dealing  with  employ¬ 
ment  at  sea  and  on  inland  waterways. 

The  competent  authority  in  each  country  shall  define  the  line  of 
division  which  separates  industry  from  commerce  and  agriculture. 

Article  2. 

The  working  hours  of  persons  employed  in  any  public  or  private 
industrial  undertaking  or  in  any  branch  thereof,  other  than  an  under¬ 
taking  in  which  only  members  of  the  same  family  are  employed,  shall 
not  exceed  8  in  the  day  and  48  in  the  week,  with  the  exceptions 
hereinafter  provided  for. 

(а)  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  not  apply  to  persons 
holding  positions  of  supervision  or  management,  nor  to  persons  em¬ 
ployed  in  a  confidential  capacity. 

(б)  Where  by  law,  custom,  or  agreement  between  employers’  and 
workers’  organizations,  or  where  no  such  organizations  exist  between 
employers’  and  workers’  representatives,  the  hours  of  work  on  one  or 
more  days  of  the  week  are  less  than  eight,  the  limit  of  eight  hours 
may  be  exceeded  on  the  remaining  days  of  the  week  by  the  sanction 
of  the  competent  public  authority,  or  by  agreement  between  such 


organizations  or  representatives;  provided,  however,  that  in  no  case 
under  the  provisions  of  this  paragraph  shall  the  daily  limit  of  eight 
hours  be  exceeded  by  more  than  one  hour. 

(c)  Where  persons  are  employed  in  shifts  it  shall  be  permissible  to 
employ  persons  in  excess  of  8  hours  in  any  one  day  and  48  hours  in 
any  one  week,  if  the  average  number  of  hours  over  a  period  of  three 
weeks  or  less  does  not  exceed  8  per  day  and  48  per  week. 

Article  3. 

The  limit  of  hours  of  work  prescribed  in  article  2  may  be  exceeded 
in  case  of  accident,  actual  or  threatened,  or  in  case  of  urgent  work  to 
be  done  to  machinery  or  plant,  or  in  case  of  “force  majeure,”  but 
only  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  avoid  serious  interference  with  the 
ordinary  working  of  the  undertaking. 

Article  4. 

The  limit  of  hours  of  work  prescribed  in  article  2  may  also  be  ex¬ 
ceeded  in  those  processes  which  are  required  by  reason  of  the  nature 
of  the  process  to  be  carried  on  continuously  by  a  succession  of  shifts, 
subject  to  the  condition  that  the  working  hours  shall  not  exceed  56 
in  the  week  on  the  average.  Such  regulation  of  the  hours  of  work 
shall  in  no  case  affect  any  rest  days  which  may  be  secured  by  the 
national  law  to  the  workers  in  such  processes  in  compensation  for  the 
weekly  rest  day. 

Article  5. 

In  exceptional  cases  where  it  is  recognized  that  the  provisions  of 
article  2  can  not  be  applied,  but  only  in  such  cases,  agreements  be¬ 
tween  workers'  and  employers’  organizations  concerning  the  daily 
limit  of  work  over  a  longer  period  of  time,  may  be  given  the  force  of 
regulations,  if  the  Government,  to  which  these  agreements  shall  be 
submitted,  so  decides.  The  average  number  of  hours  worked  per 
week,  over  the  number  of  weeks  covered  by  any  such  agreement, 
shall  not  exceed  48. 

Article  6. 

Regulations  made  by  public  authority  shall  determine  for  indus¬ 
trial  undertakings: 

(а)  The  permanent  exceptions  that  may  be  allowed  in  preparatory 
or  complementary  wrork  which  must  necessarily  be  carried  on  out¬ 
side  the  limits  laid  down  for  the  general  working  of  an  establishment, 
or  for  certain  classes  of  workers  whose  work  is  essentially  intermittent. 

(б)  The  temporary  exceptions  that  may  be  allowed,  so  that  estab¬ 
lishments  may  deal  with  exceptional  cases  of  pressure  of  work. 

These  regulations  shall  be  made  only  after  consultation  with  the 
organizations  of  employer?  and  workers  concerned,  if  any  such  or¬ 
ganizations  exist.  These  regulations  shall  fix  the  maximum  of  addi¬ 
tional  hours  in  each  instance,  and  the  rate  of  pay  for  overtime  shall 
not  be  less  than  one  and  one-quarter  times  the  regular  rate. 

Article  7. 

Each  Government  shall  communicate  to  the  International  Labor 
Office: 

(a)  A  list  of  the  processes  which  are  classed  as  being  necessarily 
continuous  in  character  under  Article  4; 

( b )  Full  information  as  to  working  of  the  agreements  mentioned  in 
Article  5;  and 

(c)  Full  information  concerning  the  regulations  made  under  Article 
6  and  their  application. 

The  International  Labor  Office  shall  make  an  annual  report  there¬ 
on  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 


256 


APPENDIX 


257 


Article  8. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this  con¬ 
vention,  every  employer  shall  be  required: 

(a)  To  notify  by  means  of  the  posting  of  notices  in  conspicuous 
places  in  the  works  or  other  suitable  place,  or  by  such  other  method 
as  may  be  approved  by  the  Government,  the  hours  at  which  work 
begins  and  ends,  and  where  work  is  carried  on  by  shifts  the  hours  at 
which  each  shift  begins  and  ends.  These  hours  shall  be  so  fixed  that 
the  duration  of  the  work  shall  not  exceed  the  limits  prescribed  by 
this  convention,  and  when  so  notified  they  shall  not  be  changed  ex¬ 
cept  with  such  notice  and  in  such  manner  as  may  be  approved  by  the 
Government. 

( b )  To  notify  in  the  same  way  such  rest  intervals  accorded  during 
the  period  of  work  as  are  not  reckoned  as  part  of  the  working  hours. 

(c)  To  keep  a  record  in  the  form  prescribed  by  law  or  regulation  in 
each  country  of  all  additional  hours  worked  in  pursuance  of  Articles 
3  and  6  of  this  convention. 

It  shall  be  made  an  offense  against  the  law  to  employ  any  person 
outside  the  hours  fixed  in  accordance  with  paragraph  (a),  or  during 
the  intervals  fixed  in  accordance  with  paragraph  ( b ). 

Article  9. 

In  the  application  of  this  convention  to  Japan  the  following  modi¬ 
fications  and  conditions  shall  obtain: 

(a)  The  term  “industrial  undertaking”  includes  particularly — 

The  undertakings  enumerated  in  paragraph  (a)  of  Article  1.; 

The  undertakings  enumerated  in  paragraph  ( b )  of  Article  1,  pro¬ 
vided  there  are  at  least  ten  workers  employed; 

The  undertakings  enumerated  in  paragraph  (c)  of  Article  1,  in  so 
far  as  these  undertakings  shall  be  defined  as  “factories  ”  by  the  com¬ 
petent  authority; 

The  undertakings  enumerated  in  paragraph  ( d )  of  Article  1,  except 
transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road,  handling  of  goods  at  docks, 
quays,  wharves,  and  warehouses,  and  transport  by  hand;  and, 

Regardless  of  the  number  of  persons  employed,  such  of  the  under¬ 
takings  enumerated  in  paragraph  ( b )  and  (c)  of  Article  1  as  may  be 
declared  by  the  competent  authority  either  to  be  highly  dangerous 
or  to  involve  unhealthy  processes. 

( b )  The  actual  working  hours  of  persons  of  15  years  of  age  or 
over  in  any  public  or  private  industrial  undertaking,  orm  any  branch 
thereof,  shall  not  exceed  57  in  the  week,  except  that  in  the  raw-silk 
industry  the  limit  may  be  60  hours  in  the  week. 

(c)  The  actual  working  hours  of  persons  under  15  years  of  age  in 
any  public  or  private  industrial  undertaking,  or  in  any  branch  there¬ 
of,  and  of  all  miners  of  whatever  age  engaged  in  underground  work 
in  the  mines,  shall  in  no  case  exceed  48  in  the  week. 

( d )  The  limit  of  hours  of  work  may  be  modified  under  the  condi¬ 
tions  provided  for  in  articles  2,  3,  4,  and  5  of  this  convention,  but  in 
no  case  shall  the  length  of  such  modification  bear  to  the  length  of  the 
basic  week  a  proportion  greater  than  that  which  obtains  in  those 
articles. 

( e )  A  weekly  rest  period  of  24  consecutive  hours  shall  be  allowed 
to  all  classes  of  workers. 

(/)  The  provision  m  Japanese  factory  legislation  limiting  its  appli¬ 
cation  to  places  employing  15  or  more  persons  shall  be  amended  so 
that  such  legislation  shall  apply  to  places  employing  10  or  more 
persons. 

( g )  The  provisions  of  the  above  paragraphs  of  this  article  shall  be 
brought  into  operation  not  later  then  July  1,  1922,  except  that  the 
provisions  of  article  4  as  modified  by  paragraph  (d)  of  this  article  shall 
be  brought  into  operation  not  later  than  July  1,  1923. 

(h)  The  age  of  15  prescribed  in  paragraph  (c)  of  this  article  shall  be 
raised,  not  later  than  July  1,  1925,  to  16. 

Article  10. 

In  British  India  the  principle  of  a  60-hour  week  shall  be  adopted 
for  all  workers  in  the  industries  at  present  covered  by  the  factory  acts 


administered  by  the  Government  of.  India,  in  mines,  and  in  such 
branches  of  railway  work  as  shall  be  specified  for  this  purpose  by  the 
competent  authority.  Any  modification  of  this  limitation  made  by 
the  competent  authority  shall  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of  articles 
6  and  7  of  this  convention.  In  other  respects  the  provisions  of  this 
convention  shall  not  apply  to  India,  but  further  provisions  limiting 
the  hours  of  work  in  India  shall  be  considered  at  a  future  meeting  of 
the  general  conference. 

Article  11. 

The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  not  apply  to  China,  Persia, 
and  Siam,  but  provisions  limiting  the  hours  of  work  in  these  countries 
shall  be  considered  at  a  future  meeting  of  the  general  conference. 

Article  12. 

In  the  application  of  this  convention  to  Greece,  the  date  at  which 
its  provisions  shall  be  brought  into  operation  in  accordance  with 
article  19  may  be  extended  to  not  later  than  July  1,  1923,  in  the  case 
of  the  following  industrial  undertakings: 

(1)  Carbon  bisulphide  works, 

(2)  Acids  works, 

(3)  Tanneries, 

(4)  Paper  mills, 

(5)  Printing  works, 

(6)  Sawmills, 

(7)  Warehouses  for  the  handling  and  preparation  of  tobacco, 

(8)  Surface  mining, 

(9)  Foundries, 

(10)  Lime  works, 

(11)  Dye  works, 

(12)  Glass  works  (blowers), 

(13)  Gas  works  (firemen), 

(14)  Loading  and  unloading  merchandise; 

and  to  not  later  than  July  1,  1924,  in  the  case  of  the  following  indus¬ 
trial  undertakings: 

(1)  Mechanical  industries:  Machine  shops  for  engines,  safes, 
scales,  beds,  tacks,  shells  (sporting),  iron  foundries,  bronze  foundries, 
tin  shops,  plating  shops,  manufactories  of  hydraulic  apparatus. 

(2)  Constructional  industries:  Lime  kilns,  cement  works,  plas¬ 
terers’  shops,  tile  yards,  manufactories  of  bricks  and  pavements, 
potteries,  marble  yards,  excavating  and  building  work. 

(3)  Textile  industries:  Spinning  and  weaving  mills  of  all  kinds, 
except  dye  works. 

(4)  Food  industries:  Flour  and  gristmills,  bakeries,  macaroni 
factories,  manufactories  of  wines,  alcohol,  and  drinks,  oil  works, 
breweries,  manufactories  of  ice  and  carbonated  drinks,  manufac¬ 
tories  of  confectioners’  products  and  chocolate,  manufactories  of 
sausages  and  preserves,  slaughter-houses,  and  butcher  shops. 

(5)  Chemical  industries:  Manufactories  of  synthetic  colors,  glass¬ 
works  (except  the  blowers),  manufactories  of  essence  of  turpentine 
and  tartar,  manufactories  of  oxygen  and  pharmaceutical  products, 
manufactories  of  flaxseed  oil,  manufactories  of  glycerine,  manufac¬ 
tories  of  calcium  carbide,  gas  works  (except  the  firemen). 

(6)  Leather  industries:  Shoe  factories,  manufactories  of  leather 
goods. 

(7)  Paper  and  printing 'industries:  Manufactories  of  envelopes, 
record  books,  boxes,  bags,  bookbinding,  lithographing,  and  zinc¬ 
engraving  shops. 

(8)  Clothing  industries:  Clothing  shops,  underwear  and  trim¬ 
mings,  workshops  for  pressing,  workshops  for  bed  coverings,  artificial 
flowers,  feathers,  and  trimmings,  hat  and  umbrella  factories. 

(9)  Woodworking  industries:  Joiners’  shops,  coopers’  sheds, 
wagon  factories,  manufactories  of  furniture  and  chairs,  picture¬ 
framing  establishments,  brush  and  broom  fac  tories. 

(10)  Electrical  industries:  Power  houses,  shops  for  electrical 
installations. 

(11)  Transportation  by  land:  Employees  on  railroads  and  street 
cars,  firemen,  drivers,  and  carters. 


146865°— 20 - 17 


258 


APPENDIX 


Article  13. 

In  the  application  of  this  convention  to  Roumania  the  date  at 
which  its  provisions  shall  be  brought  into  operation  in  accordance 
with  article  19  may  be  extended  to  not  later  than  July  1,  1924. 

Article  14. 

The  operation  of  the  provisions  of  this  convention  may  be  sus¬ 
pended  in  any  country  by  the  Government  in  the  event  of  war  or 
other  emergency  endangering  the  national  safety. 

Article  15. 

The  formal  ratifications  of  this  convention,  under  the  conditions 
set  forth  in  Part  XIII  of  the  Treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919, 
and  of  the  Treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919,  shall  be 
communicated  to  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations 
for  registration. 

Article  16. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  engages  to  apply  it  to 
its  colonies,  protectorates  and  possessions  which  are  not  fully  self- 
governing: 

(а)  Except  where  owing  to  the  local  conditions  its  provisions  are 
inapplicable;  or 

(б)  Subject  to  such  modifications  as  may  be  necessary  to  adapt  its 
provisions  to  local  conditions. 

Each  member  shall  notify  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the 
action  taken  in  respect  of  each  of  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  pos¬ 
sessions  which  are  not  fully  self-governing. 

Article  17. 

As  soon  as  the  ratifications  of  two  members  of  the  International 
Labor  Organization  have  been  registered  with  the  secretariat,  the 
secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  so  notify  all  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Article  18. 

This  convention  shall  come  into  force  at  the  date  on  which  such 
notification  is  issued  by  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Na¬ 
tions,  and  it  shall  then  be  binding  only  upon  those  members  which 
have  registered  their  ratification  with  the  secretariat.  Thereafter 
this  convention  will  come  into  force  for  any  other  member,  at  the 
date  on  which  its  ratification  is  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  19. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  agrees  to  bring  its 
provisions  into  operation  not  later  than  July  1,  1921,  and  to  take  such 
action  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  these  provisions  effective. 

Article  20. 

A  member  which  has  ratified  this  convention  may  denounce  it 
after  the  expiration  of  10  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  conven¬ 
tion  first  comes  into  force,  by  an  act  communicated  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for  registration.  Such  denunciation 
shall  not  take  effect  until  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  is  reg¬ 
istered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  21. 

At  least  once  in  10  years  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  present  to  the  general  conference  a  report  on  the 
working  of  this  convention,  and  shall  consider  the  desirability  of 
placing  on  the  agenda  of  the  conference  the  question  of  its  revision 
or  modification. 

Article  22. 

The  French  and  English  texts  of  this  convention  shall  both  be 
authentic. 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  CONCERNING  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  on .  the  29th  day  of  October, 
1919,  and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  the  “question  of  preventing  or  providing  against  unem¬ 
ployment,”  which  is  the  second  item  in  the  agenda  for  the 
Washington  meeting  of  the  Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  draft  international  convention, 

Adopts  the  following  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  in  accordance 
with  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and 
of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919: 

Article  1. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  shall  communicate 
to  the  International  Labor  Office,  at  intervals  as  short  as  possible 
and  not  exceeding  three  months,  all  available  information,  statis¬ 
tical  or  otherwise,  concerning  unemployment,  including  reports  on 
measures  taken  or  contemplated  to  combat  unemployment.  When¬ 
ever  practicable,  the  information  shall  be  made  available  for  such 
communication  not  later  than  three  months  after  the  end  of  the 
period  to  which  it  relates. 

Article  2. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  shall  establish  a 
system  of  free  public  employment  agencies  under  the  control  of  a 
central  authority.  Committees,  which  shall  include  representatives 
of  employers  and  of  workers,  shall  be  appointed  to  advise  on  matters 
concerning  the  carrying  on  of  these  agencies. 

Where  both  public  and  private  free  employment  agencies  exist, 
steps  shall  be  taken  to  coordinate  the  operations  of  such  agencies 
on  a  national  scale. 

The  operations  of  the  various  national  systems  shall  be  coordinated 
by  the  International  Labor  Office  in  agreement  with  the  countries 
concerned. 

Article  3. 

The  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  which 
ratify  this  convention  and  which  have  established  systems  of  insur¬ 
ance  against  unemployment  shall,  upon  terms  being  agreed  between 
the  members  concerned,  make  arrangements  whereby  workers 
belonging  to  one  member  and  working  in  the  territory  of  another 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  same  rates  of  benefit  of  such  insurance  as 
those  which  obtain  for  the  workers  belonging  to  the  latter. 

Article  4. 

The  formal  ratifications  of  this  convention,  under  the  conditions 
set  forth  in  Part  XIII  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919, 
and  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919,  shall  be  com¬ 
municated  to  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for 
registration. 

Article  5. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  engages  to  apply  it 
to  its  colonies  protectorates,  and  possessions  which  are  not  fully 
self-governing: 

(а)  Except  where  owing  to  the  local  conditions  its  provisions  are 
inapplicable;  or 

(б)  Subject  to  such  modifications  as  may  be  necessary  to  adapt 
its  provisions  to  local  conditions. 

Each  member  shall  notify  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the 
action  taken  in  respect  of  each  of  its  colonies,  protectorates  and 
possessions  which  are  not  fully  self-governing. 


APPENDIX 


259 


Article  6. 

As  soon  as  the  ratifications  of  three  members  of  the  International 
Labor  Organization  have  been  registered  with  the  secretariat,  the 
secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  so  notify  all  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Article  7. 

This  convention  shall  come  into  force  at  the  date  on  which  such 
notification  is  issued  by  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  but  it  shall  then  be  binding  only  upon  those  members 
which  have  registered  their  ratifications  with  the  secretarial.  There¬ 
after  this  convention  will  come  into  force  for  any  other  member  at 
the  date  on  which  its  ratification  is  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  8. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  agrees  to  bring  its 
provisions  into  operation  not  later  than  1  July,  1921,  and  to  take 
such  action  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  these  provisions  effective. 

Article  9. 

A  member  which  has  ratified  this  convention  may  denounce  it 
after  the  expiration  of  ten  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  conven¬ 
tion  first  comes  into  force,  by  an  act  communicated  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for  registration.  Such  denuncia¬ 
tion  shall  not  take  effect  until  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  is 
registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  10. 

At  least  once  in  ten  years  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  present  to  the  general  conference  a  report  on  the 
working  of  this  convention,  and  shall  consider  the  desirability  of 
placing  on  the  agenda  of  the  conference  the  question  of  its  revision 
or  modification. 

Article  11. 

The  French  and  English  texts  of  this  convention  shall  both  be 
authentic. 


RECOMMENDATION  CONCERNING  UNEMPLOYMENT. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, 

and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  the  “question  of  preventing  or  providing  against 
unemployment,”  which  is  the  second  item  in  the  agenda  for  the 
Washington  meeting  of  the  Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  recommendation, 

Adopts  the  following  recommendation,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  for  consideration 
with  a  view  to  effect  being  given  to  it  by  national  legislation  or 
otherwise,  in  accordance  with  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
of  June  28, 1919,  and  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10, 1919; 

I. 

The  General  Conference  recommends  that  each  member  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization  take  measures  to  prohibit  the 
establishment  of  employment  agencies  which  charge  fees  or  which 
carry  on  their  business  for  profit.  Where  such  agencies  already  exist 
it  is  further  recommended  that  they  be  permitted  to  operate  only 
under  Government  licenses,  and  that  all  practicable  measures  be 
taken  to  abolish  such  agencies  as  soon  as  possible. 


II. 

The  General  Conference  recommends  to  the  members  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Organization  that  the  recruiting  of  bodies  of  workers 
in  one  country  with  a  view  to  their  employment  in  another  country 
should  be  permitted  only  by  mutual  agreement  between  the  coun¬ 
tries  concerned  and  after  consultation  with  employers  and  workers 
in  each  country  in  the  industries  concerned. 

III. 

The  General  Conference  recommends  that  each  member  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization  establish  an  effective  system  of 
unemployment  insurance,  either  through  a  Government  system  or 
through  a  system  of  Government  subventions  to  associations  whose 
rules  provide  for  the  payment  of  benefits  to  their  unemployed 
members. 

IV. 

The  General  Conference  recommends  that  each  member  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization  coordinate  the  execution  of  all 
work  undertaken  under  public  authority,  with  a  view  to  reserving 
such  work  as  far  as  practicable  for  periods  of  unemployment  and 
for  districts  most  affected  by  it. 


RECOMMENDATION  CONCERNING  RECIPROCITY  OF  TREATMENT 
OF  FOREIGN  WORKERS. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, 
and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  the  “question  of  preventing  or  providing  against 
unemployment,”  which  is  the  second  item  in  the  agenda  for  the 
Washington  meeting  of  the  Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  recommendation, 

Adopts  the  following  recommendation  to  be  submitted  to  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  for  consideration 
with  a  view  to  effect  being  given  to  it  by  national  legislation  or 
otherwise,  in  accordance  with  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
of  June  28,  1919,  and  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10, 
1919: 

The  General  Conference  recommends  that  each  member  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization  shall,  on  condition  of  reciprocity 
and  upon  terms  to  be  agreed  between  the  countries  concerned, 
admit  the  foreign  workers  (together  with  their  families)  employed 
within  its  territory  to  the  benefit  of  its  laws  and  regulations  for 
the  protection  of  its  own  workers,  as  well  as  to  the  right  of  lawful 
organization  as  enjoyed  by  its  own  workers. 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  CONCERNING  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  * 
WOMEN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, 
and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  “women’s  employment,  before  and  after  childbirth, 
including  the  question  of  maternity  benefit,”  which  is  part  of 
the  third  item  in  the  agenda  for  the  Washington  meeting  of  the 
Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form  of 
a  draft  international  convention, 


260 


APPENDIX 


Adopts  the  following  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  in  accordance  with  the 
labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  28  June,  1919,  and  of  the 
treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  10  September,  1919: 

Article  1. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “industrial  under¬ 
taking”  includes  particularly: 

(a)  Mines,  quarries,  and  other  works  for  the  extraction  of  minerals 
from  the  earth. 

( b )  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  cleaned, 
repaired,  ornamented,  finished,  adapted  for  sale,  broken  up  or 
demolished,  or  in  which  materials  are  transformed;  including 
shipbuilding,  and  the  generation,  transformation,  and  transmission 
of  electricity  or  motive  power  of  any  kind. 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  as  well  as  the 
preparation  for  or  laying  the  foundation  of  any  such  work  or  structure. 

(d)  Transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road,  rail,  sea,  or  inland 
waterway,  including  the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves, 
and  warehouses,  but  excluding  transport  by  hand. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “commercial  under¬ 
taking”  includes  any  place  where  articles  are  sold  or  where  com¬ 
merce  is  carried  on. 

The  competent  authority  in  each  country  shall  define  the  line 
of  division  which  separates  industry  and  commerce  from  agriculture. 

Article  2. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “woman”  signifies 
any  female  person,  irrespective  of  age  or  nationality,  whether  mar¬ 
ried  or  unmarried,  and  the  term  “child”  signifies  any  child  whether 
legitimate  or  illegitimate. 

Article  3. 

In  any  public  or  private  industrial  or  commercial  undertaking,  or 
in  any  branch  thereof,  other  than  an  undertaking  in  which  only 
members  of  the  same  family  are  employed,  a  woman — 

(а)  Shall  not  be  permitted  to  work  during  the  six  weeks  following 
her  confinement. 

(б)  Shall  have  the  right  to  leave  her  work  if  she  produces  a  medi¬ 
cal  certificate  stating  that  her  confinement  will  probably  take  place 
within  six  weeks. 

(c)  Shall,  while  she  is  absent  from  her  work  in  pursuance  of  para¬ 
graphs  (a)  and  (6),  be  paid  benefits  sufficient  for  the  full  and  healthy 
maintenance  of  herself  and  her  child,  provided  either  out  of  public 
funds  or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance,  the  exact  amount  of 
which  shall  be  determined  by  the  competent  authority  in  each 
country,  and  as  an  additional  benefit  shall  be  entitled  to  free  attend¬ 
ance  by  a  doctor  or  certified  midwife.  No  mistake  of  the  medical 
adviser  in  estimating  the  date  of  confinement  shall  preclude  a  woman 
from  receiving  these  benefits  from  the  date  of  the  medical  certificate 
up  to  the  date  on  which  the  confinement  actually  takes  place. 

.  ( d )  Shall  in  any  case,  if  she  is  nursing  her  child,  be  allowed  half 

an  hour  twice  a  day  during  her  working  hours  for  this  purpose. 

Article  4. 

Where  a  woman  is  absent  from  her  work  in  accordance  with  para¬ 
graphs  (a)  or  (6)  of  article  3  of  this  convention,  or  remains  absent 
from  her  work  for  a  longer  period  as  a  result  of  illness  medically 
certified  to  arise  out  of  pregnancy  or  confinement  and  rendering  her 
unfit  for  work,  it  shall  not  be  lawful,  until  her  absence  shall  have 
exceeded  a  maximum  period  to  be  fixed  by  the  competent  authority 
in  each  country,  for  her  employer  to  give  her  notice  of  dismissal 
during  such  absence,  nor  to  give  her  notice  of  dismissal  at  such  a 
time  that  the  notice  would  expire  during  such  absence. 

Article  5. 

The  formal  ratifications  of  this  convention,  under  the  conditions 
set  forth  in  Part  XIII  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and 


of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919,  shall  be  com¬ 
municated  to  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for 
registration. 

Article  6. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  engages  to  apply  it 
to  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  possessions  which  are  not  fully 
self-governing: 

(а)  Except  where,  owing  to  the  local  conditions,  its  provisions 
are  inapplicable;  or 

(б)  Subject  to  such  modifications  as  may  be  necessary  to  adapt  its 
provisions  to  local  conditions. 

Each  member  shall  notify  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the 
action  taken  in  respect  of  each  of  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  pos¬ 
sessions  which  are  not  fully  self-governing. 

Article  7. 

As  soon  as  the  ratifications  of  two  members  of  the  International 
Labor  Organization  have  been  registered  with  the  secretariat,  the 
secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  so  notify  all  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Article  8. 

This  convention  shall  come  into  force  at  the  date  on  which  such 
notification  is  issued  by  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  but  it  shall  then  be  binding  only  upon  those  members  which 
have  registered  their  ratifications  with  the  secretariat.  Thereafter 
this  convention  will  come  into  force  for  any  other  member  at  the 
date  on  which  its  ratification  is  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  9. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  agrees  to  bring  its 
provisions  into  operation  not  later  than  1  July,  1922,  and  to  take 
such  action  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  these  provisions  effective. 

Article  10. 

A  member  which  has  ratified  this  convention  may  denounce  it 
after  the  expiration  of  10  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  con¬ 
vention  first  comes  into  force,  by  an  act  communicated  to  the  secre¬ 
tary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for  registration.  Such  denun¬ 
ciation  shall  not  take  effect  until  one  year  after  the  date  on  which 
it  is  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  11. 

At  least  once  in  10  years  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  present  to  the  General  Conference  a  report  on 
the  working  of  this  convention,  and  shall  consider  the  desirability 
of  placing  on  the  agenda  of  the  conference  the  question  of  its  revision 
or  modification. 

Article  12. 

The  French  and  English  texts  of  this  convention  shall  both  be 
authentic. 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  CONCERNING  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN 
DURING  THE  NIGHT. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, 
and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  “women’s  employment:  during  the  night,”  which  is 
part  of  the  third  item  in  the  agenda  for  the  Washington  meeting 
of  the  Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  draft  international  convention, 

Adopts  the  following  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  in  accordance  with 
the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and  of  the 
treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919; 


APPENDIX 


261 


Article  1. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “industrial  under¬ 
taking’’  includes  particularly: 

(a)  Mines,  quarries,  and  other  works  for  the  extraction  of  min¬ 
erals  from  the  earth ; 

( b )  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered, 
cleaned,  repaired,  ornamented,  finished,  adapted  for  sale,  broken 
up  or  demolished,  or  in  which  materials  are  transformed;  including 
shipbuilding,  and  the  generation,  transformation,  and  transmission 
of  electricity  or  motive  power  of  any  kind; 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  as  well  as  the  prep¬ 
aration  for  or  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  structure. 

The  competent  authority  in  each  country  shall  define  the  line  of 
division  which  separates  industry  from  commerce  and  agriculture. 

Article  2. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “night”  signifies  a 
period  of  at  least  11  consecutive  hours,  including  the  interval 
between  10  o’clock  in  the  evening  and  5  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

In' those  countries  where  no  government  regulation  as  yet  applies 
to  the  employment  of  women  in  industrial  undertakings  during  the 
night,  the  term  “night”  may  provisionally,  and  for  a  maximum 
period  of  3  years,  be  declared  by  the  Government  to  signify  a 
period  of  only  10  hours,  including  the  interval  between  10  o’clock 
in  the  evening  and  5  o’clock  in  the  morning. 

Article  3. 

Women  without  distinction  of  age  shall  not  be  employed  during 
the  night  in  any  public  or  private  industrial  undertaking,  or  in  any 
branch  thereof,  other  than  an  undertaking  in  which  only  members  of 
the  same  family  are  employed. 

Article  4. 

Article  3  shall  not  apply : 

(a)  In  cases  of  force  majeure,  when  in  any  undertaking  there 
occurs  an  interruption  of  work  which  it  was  impossible  to  foresee, 
and  which  is  not  of  a  recurring  character. 

( b )  In  cases  where  the  work  has  to  do  with  raw  materials  or  mater¬ 
ials  in  course  of  treatment  which  are  subject  to  rapid  deterioration, 
when  such  night  work  is  necessary  to  preserve  the  said  materials 
from  certain  loss. 

Article  5. 

In  India  and  Siam,  the  application  of  article  3  of  this  convention 
may  be  suspended  by  the  Government  in  respect  to  any  industrial 
undertaking,  except  factories  as  defined  by  the  national  law.  Notice 
of  every'  such  suspension  shall  be  filed  with  the  International  Labor 
Office. 

Article  6. 

In  industrial  undertakings  which  are  influenced  by  the  seasons 
and  in  all  cases  where  exceptional  circumstances  demand  it,  the 
night  period  may  be  reduced  to  10  hours  on  60  days  of  the  year. 

Article  7. 

In  countries  where  the  climate  renders  work  by  day  particularly 
trying  to  the  health,  the  night  period  may  be  shorter  than  prescribed 
in  the  above  articles,  provided  that  compensatory  rest  is  accorded 
during  the  day. 

Article  8. 

The  formal  ratifications  of  this  convention,  under  the  conditions 
set  forth  in  Part  XIII  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and 
of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919,  shall  be  com¬ 
municated  to  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for 
registration. 


Article  9. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  engages  to  apply  it 
to  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  possessions  which  are  not  fully 
self-governing: 

(a)  Except  where  owing  to  the  local  conditions  its  provisions  are 
inapplicable;  or 

( b )  Subject  to  such  modifications  as  may  be  necessary'  to  adapt 
its  provisions  to  local  conditions. 

Each  member  shall  notify  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the 
action  taken  in  respect  of  each  of  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  pos¬ 
sessions  which  are  not  fully  self-governing. 

Article  10. 

As  soon  as  the  ratifications  of  two  members  of  the  International 
Labor  Organization  have  been  registered  with  the  secretariat,  the 
secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  so  notify  all  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Article  11. 

This  convention  shall  come  into  force  at  the  date  on  which  such 
notification  is  issued  by  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  but  it  shall  then  be  binding  only  upon  those  members 
which  have  registered  their  ratifications  with  the  secretariat.  There¬ 
after  this  convention  will  come  into  force  for  any  other  member  at 
the  date  on  which  its  ratification  is  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  12. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  agrees  to  bring  its 
provisions  into  operation  not  later  than  July  1,  1922,  and  to  take  such 
action  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  these  provisions  effective. 

Article  13. 

A  member  which  has  ratified  this  convention  may  denounce  it 
after  the  expiration  of  10  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  convention 
first  comes  into  force,  by  an  act  communicated  to  the  secretary  gen¬ 
eral  of  the  League  of  Nations  for  registration.  Such  denunciation 
shall  not  take  effect  until  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  is  regis¬ 
tered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  14. 

At  least  once  in  10  years,  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  present  to  the  General  Conference  a  report  on  the 
working  of  this  convention,  and  shall  consider  the  desirability  of 
placing  on  the  agenda  of  the  Conference  the  question  of  its  revision 
or  modification. 

Article  15. 

The  French  and  English  texts  of  this  convention  shall  both  be 
authentic. 


RECOMMENDATION  CONCERNING  THE  PREVENTION  OF 

ANTHRAX. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919,  and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  “women’s  employment:  unhealthy  processes,”  which 
is  part  of  the  third  item  in  the  agenda  for  the  Washington  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Conference;  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form  of 
a  recommendation, 

Adopts  the  following  recommendation,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  for  consideration 
with  a  view  to  effect  being  given  to  it  by  national  legislation  or  other¬ 
wise,  in  accordance  with  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of 
June  28,  1919,  and  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919: 

The  General  Conference  recommends  to  the  members  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Organization  that  arrangements  should  be  made  for 
the  disinfection  of  wool  infected  with  anthrax  spores,  either  in  the 
country  exporting  such  wool  or  if  that  is  not  practicable  at  the  port 
of  entry  in  the  country  importing  such  wool. 


262 


APPENDIX 


RECOMMENDATION  CONCERNING  THE  PROTECTION  OF  WOMEN 
AND  CHILDREN  AGAINST  LEAD  POISONING. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919, and 
Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  “women’s  and  children’s  employment:  unhealthy 
processes,  ”  which  is  part  of  the  third  and  fourth  items  in  the 
agenda  for  the  Washington  meeting  of  the  Conference,  and 
Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form  of 
a  recommendation, 

Adopts  the  following  recommendation,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  for  consideration 
with  a  view  to  effect  being  given  to  it  by  national  legislation  or  other¬ 
wise,  in  accordance  with  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of 
June  28, 1919,  and  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10, 1919: 

The  general  conference  recommends  to  the  members  of  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Organization  that,  in  view  of  the  danger  involved  to 
the  function  of  maternity  and  to  the  physical  development  of  chil¬ 
dren,  women,  and  young  persons  under  the  age  of  18  years  be  ex¬ 
cluded  from  employment  in  the  following  processes: 

(а)  In  furnace  work  in  the  reduction  of  zinc  or  lead  ores. 

(б)  In  the  manipulation,  treatment,  or  reduction  of  ashes  con¬ 
taining  lead,  and  in  the  desilverizing  of  lead. 

(c)  In  melting  lead  or  old  zinc  on  a  large  scale. 

(d)  In  the  manufacture  of  solder  or  alloys  containing  more  than 
10  per  cent  of  lead. 

(e)  In  the  manufacture  of  litharge,  massicot,  red  lead,  white  lead, 
orange  lead,  or  sulphate,  chromate  or  silicate  (frit)  of  lead. 

(/)  In  mixing  and  pasting  in  the  manufacture  or  repair  of  electric 
accumulators. 

( g )  In  the  cleaning  of  workrooms  where  the  qbove  processes  are 
carried  on. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  the  employment  of  women  and 
young  persons  under  the  age  of  18  years  in  processes  involving  the 
use  of  lead  compounds  be  permitted  only  subject  to  the  following 
conditions: 

(a)  Locally  applied  exhaust  ventilation,  so  as  to  remove  dust  and 
fumes  at  the  point  of  origin. 

(b)  Cleanliness  of  tools  and  workrooms. 

(c)  Notification  to  government  authorities  of  all  cases  of  lead 
poisoning,  and  compensation  therefor. 

( d )  Periodic  medical  examination  of  the  persons  employed  in 
such  processes. 

(e)  Provision  of  sufficient  and  suitable  cloakroom,  washing,  and 
mess-room  accommodation,  and  of  special  protective  clothing. 

(/)  Prohibition  of  bringing  food  or  drink  into  workrooms. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  in  industries  where  soluble  lead 
compounds  can  be  replaced  by  nontoxic  substances,  the  use  of 
soluble  lead  compounds  should  be  strictly  regulated. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  recommendation,  a  lead  compound  should 
be  considered  as  soluble  if  it  contains  more  than  5  per  cent  of  its 
weight  (estimated  as  metallic  lead)  soluble  in  a  quarter  of  1  per  cent 
solution  of  hydrochloric  acid. 

RECOMMENDATION  CONCERNING  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF 
GOVERNMENT  HEALTH  SERVICES. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  of  America  on  the  29th  day  of  October,  1919,  and 
Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  “women’s  employment:  unhealthy  processes,”  which 
is  part  of  the  third  item  in  the  agenda  for  the  Washington  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  recommendation. 


Adopts  the  following  recommendation,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor _ Organization  for  consideration 
with  a  view  to  effect  being  given  to  it  by  national  legislation  or  other¬ 
wise,  in  accordance  with  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of 
June  28,  1919,  and  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919; 

The  General  Conference  recommends  that  each  member  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization  which  has  not  already  done  so 
should  establish  as  soon  as  possible,  not  only  a  system  of  efficient 
factory  inspection,  but  also  in  addition  thereto  a  Government  service 
especially  charged  with  the  duty  of  safeguarding  the  health  of  the 
workers,  which  will  keep  in  touch  with  the  International  Labor 
Office. 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  FIXING  THE  MINIMUM  AGE  FOR  ADMISSION 
OF  CHILDREN  TO  INDUSTRIAL  EMPLOYMENT. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  at  Washington,  on  the  29th  day  of  October, 
1919,  and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  the  *  ‘  employment  of  children :  minimum  age  of  employ¬ 
ment,  ”  which  is  part  of  the  fourth  item  in  the  agenda  for  the 
Washington  meeting  of  the  conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  draft  international  convention. 

Adopts  the  following  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  in  accordance  with 
the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and  of  the 
treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919: 

Article  1. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “industrial  under¬ 
taking”  includes  particularly: 

(a)  Mines,  quarries  and  other  works  for  the  extraction  of  minerals 
from  the  earth. 

( b )  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  cleaned, 
repaired,  ornamented,  finished,  adapted  for  sale,  broken  up  or  de¬ 
molished,  or  in  which  materials  are  transformed:  including  ship¬ 
building,  and  the  generation,  transformation,  and  transmission  of 
electricity  and  motive  power  of  any  kind. 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction,  as  well  as  the 
preparation  for  or  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  struc¬ 
ture. 

( d )  Transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail  or  inland  water¬ 
way,  including  the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and 
warehouses,  but  excluding  transport  1  y  hand. 

The  competent  authority  in  each  country  shall  define  the  line  of 
division  which  separates  industry  from  commerce  and  agriculture. 

Article  2. 

Children  under  the  age  of  14  years  shall  not  be  employed  or  work 
in  any  public  or  private  industrial  undertaking,  or  in  any  branch 
thereof,  other  than  an  undertaking  in  which  only  members  of  the 
same  family  are  employed. 

Article  3. 

The  provisions  of  article  2  shall  not  apply  to  work  done  by  chil¬ 
dren  in  technical  schools,  provided  that  such  work  is  approved  and 
supervised  by  public  authority. 

Article  4. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this  con¬ 
vention,  every  employer  in  an  industrial  undertaking  shall  be 


APPENDIX 


263 


required  to  keep  a  register  of  all  persons  under  the  age  of  16  years 
employed  by  him,  and  of  the  dates  of  their  births. 

Article  5. 

In  connection  with  the  application  of  this  convention  to  Japan, 
the  following  modifications  of  article  2  may  be  made: 

(а)  Children  over  12  years  of  age  may  be  admitted  into  employ¬ 
ment  if  they  have  finished  the  course  in  the  elementary  school; 

(б)  As  regards  children  between  the  ages  of  12  and  14  already 
employed,  transitional  regulations  may  be  made. 

The  provision  in  the  present  Japanese  law  admitting  children 
under  the  age  of  12  years  to  certain  light  and  easy  employments  shall 
be  repealed. 

Article  6. 

The  proaisions  of  article  2  shall  not  apply  to  India,  but  in  India 
children  under  12  years  of  age  shall  not  be  employed, 

(а)  In  manufactories  working  with  power  and  employing  more 
than  10  persons; 

(б)  In  mines,  quarries,  and  other  works  for  the  extraction  of  miner¬ 
als  from  the  earth ; 

(c)  In  the  transport  of  passengers  or  goods,  or  mails,  by  rail,  or  in 
the  handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  and  wharves,  but  excluding 
transport  by  hand. 

Article  7. 

The  formal  ratifications  of  this  convention,  under  the  conditions 
set  forth  in  Part  XIII  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and 
of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10, 1919,  shall  be  communi¬ 
cated  to  the  secretary  general  of  th  League  of  Nations  for  registration . 

Article  8. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  engages  to  apply  it 
to  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  possessions  which  are  not  fully 
self-governing : 

(a)  Except  where  owing  to  the  local  conditions  its  provisions  are 
inapplicable;  or 

( b )  Subject  to  such  modifications  as  may  be  necessary  to  adapt  its 
provisions  to  local  conditions. 

Each  member  shall  notify  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the 
action  taken  in  respect  to  each  of  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and 
possessions  which  are  not  fully  self-governing. 

Article  9. 

As  soon  as  the  ratifications  of  two  members  of  the  International 
Labor  Organization  have  been  registered  with  the  secretariat,  the 
secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  so  notify  all  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Article  10. 

This  convention  shall  come  into  force  at  the  date  on  which  such 
notification  is  issued  by  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations, 
but  it  shall  then  be  binding  only  upon  those  members  which  have 
registered  their  ratifications  with  the  secretariat.  Thereafter  this 
convention  -will  come  into  force  for  any  other  member  at  the  date 
on  which  its  ratification  is  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  11. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  agrees  to  bring  its 
provisions  into  operation  not  later  than  July  1,  1922,  and  to  take 
such  action  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  these  provisions  effective. 

Article  12. 

A  member  which  has  ratified  this  convention  may  denounce  it 
after  the  expiration  of  10  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  conven¬ 
tion  first  comes  into  force,  by  an  ac  communicated  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  I.eague  of  Nations  for  registration.  Such  denuncia¬ 
tion  shall  not  take  effect  until  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  is 
registered  with  the  secretariat. 


Article  13. 

At  least  once  in  1 0  years,  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  present  to  the  General  Conference  a  report  on  the 
working  of  this  convention,  and  shall  consider  the  desirability  of 
placing  on  the  agenda  of  the  Conference  the  question  of  its  revision 
or  modification. 

Article  14. 

The  French  and  English  texts  of  this  convention  shall  both  be 
authentic. 


DRAFT  CONVENTION  CONCERNING  THE  NIGHT  WORK  OF  YOCNG 
PERSONS  EMPLOYED  IN  INDUSTRY. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  I.eague  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  by  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  at  Washington,  on  the  29th  day  of  October, 
1919.  and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  -with 
regard  to  the  “employment  of  children:  during  the  night,” 
which  is  part  of  the  fourth  item  in  the  agenda  for  the  Washington 
meeting  of  the  Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  draft  international  convention, 

Adopts  the  following  draft  convention  for  ratification  by  the  mem- 
ers  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  in  accordance  with  the 
labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919,  and  of  the  treaty' 
of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919: 

Article  1. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “industrial  under¬ 
taking”  includes  particularly: 

(a)  Mines,  quarries,  and  other  works  for  the  extraction  of  minerals 
from  the  earth. 

( b )  Industries  in  which  articles  are  manufactured,  altered,  clean¬ 
ed,  repaired,  ornamented,  finished,  adapted  for  sale,  broken  up,  or 
demolished,  or  in  which  materials  are  transformed;  including  ship¬ 
building,  and  the  generation,  transformation,  and  transmission  of 
electricity'  or  motive  power  of  any  kind. 

(c)  Construction,  reconstruction,  maintenance,  repair,  alteration, 
or  demolition  of  any  building,  railway,  tramway,  harbor,  dock,  pier, 
canal,  inland  waterway,  road,  tunnel,  bridge,  viaduct,  sewer,  drain, 
well,  telegraphic  or  telephonic  installation,  electrical  undertaking, 
gas  work,  waterwork,  or  other  work  of  construction  as  well  as  the  pre¬ 
paration  for  or  laying  the  foundations  of  any  such  work  or  structure. 

( d )  Transport  of  passengers  or  goods  by  road  or  rail,  including  the 
handling  of  goods  at  docks,  quays,  wharves,  and  warehouses,  but 
excluding  transport  by  hand. 

The  competent  authority  in  each  country  shall  define  the  line  of 
division  which  separates  industry  from  commerce  and  agriculture. 

Article  2. 

Young  persons  under  18  years  of  age  shall  not  be  employed  during 
the  night  in  any  public  or  private  industrial  undertaking,  or  in  any 
branch  thereof,  other  than  an  undertaking  in  which  only  members  of 
the- same  family  are  employed,  except  as  hereinafter  provided  for. 

Young  persons  over  the  age  of  16  may  be  employ'ed  during  the 
night  in  the  following  industrial  undertakings  on  Work  which,  by 
reason  of  the  nature  of  the  process,  is  required  to  be  carried  on  con¬ 
tinuously  day  and  night: 

(a)  Manufacture  of  iron  and  steel ;  processes  in  which  reverberatory 
or  regenerative  furnaces  are  used,  and  galvanizing  of  sheet  metal  or 
or  wire  (except  the  pickling  process); 

( b )  Glass  works; 

(c)  Manufacture  of  paper; 

(rf)  Manufacture  of  raw  sugar; 

(«)  Gold  mining  reduction  work: 


264 


APPENDIX 


Article  3. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  convention,  the  term  “night”  signifies  a 
period  of  at  least  11  consecutive  hours,  including  the  interval  be¬ 
tween  10  o  ’clock  in  the  evening  and  5  o  ’clock  in  the  morning. 

In  coal  and  lignite  mines  work  may  be  carried  on  in  the  interval 
between  10  o  ’clock  in  the  evening  and  5  o  ’clock  in  the  morning,  if 
an  interval  of  ordinarily  15  hours,  and  in  no  case  of  less  than  13  hours, 
separates  two  periods  of  work. 

Where  night  work  in  the  baking  industry  is  prohibited  for  all 
workers,  the  interval  between  9  o  ’clock  in  the  evening  and  4  o  ’clock 
in  the  morning  may  be  substituted  in  the  baking  industry  for  the 
interval  between  10  o’clock  in  the  evening  and  5  o’clock  in  the 
morning. 

In  those  tropical  countries  in  which  work  is  suspended  during  the 
middle  of  the  day,  the  night  period  may  be  shorter  than  11  hours 
if  compensatory  rest  is  accorded  during  the  day. 

Article  4. 

The  provisions  of  articles  2  and  3  shall  not  apply  to  the  night  work 
of  young  persons  between  the  ages  of  16  and  18  years  in  cases  of 
emergencies  which  could  not  have  been  controlled  or  foreseen, 
which  are  not  of  a  periodical  character,  and  which  interfere  with  the 
normal  working  of  the  industrial  undertaking. 

Article  5. 

In  the  application  of  this  convention  to  Japan,  until  July  1,  1925, 
article  2  shall  apply  only  to  young  persons  under  15  years  of  age  and 
thereafter  it  shall  apply  only  to  young  persons  under  16  years  of  age. 

Article  6. 

In  the  application  of  this  convention  to  India,  the  term  “indus¬ 
trial  undertakings”  shall  include  only  “factories”  as  defined  in  the 
Indian  factory  act,  and  article  2  shall  not  apply  to  male  young  per¬ 
sons  over  14  years  of  age. 

Article  7. 

The  prohibition  of  night  work  may  be  suspended  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment  for  young  persons  between  the  ages  of  16  and  18  years,  when 
in  case  of  serious  emergency  the  public  interest  demands  it. 

Article  8. 

The  formal  ratifications  of  this  convention,  under  the  conditions 
set  forth  in  Part  XIII  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles  of  June  28,  1919, 
and  of  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919,  shall  be 
communicated  to  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for 
registration. 

Article  9. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  engages  to  apply  it 
to  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and  possessions  which  are  not  fully 
self-governing: 

(а)  Except  where  owing  to  the  local  conditions  its  provisions  are 
inapplicable;  or 

(б)  Subject  to  such  modifications  as  may  be  necessary  to  adapt 
its  provisions  to  local  conditions. 

Each  member  shall  notify  to  the  International  Labor  Office  the 
action  taken  in  respect  of  each  of  its  colonies,  protectorates,  and 
possessions  which  are  not  fully  self-governing. 

Article  10. 

As  soon  as  the  ratification  of  two  members  of  the  International 
Labor  Organization  have  been  registered  with  the  secretariat  the 


secretary  general  of  the  League  of  Nations  shall  so  notify  all  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 

Article  11. 

This  convention  shall  come  into  force  at  the  date  on  which  such 
notification  is  issued  by  the  secretary  general  of  the  League  of 
Nations,  and  it  shall  then  be  binding  only  upon  those  members  which 
have  registered  their  ratifications  with  the  secretariat.  Thereafter 
this  convention  will  come  into  force  for  any  other  member  at  the 
date  on  which  its  ratification  is  registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  12. 

Each  member  which  ratifies  this  convention  agrees  to  bring  its 
provisions  into  operation  not  later  than  July  1,  1922,  and  to  take 
such  action  as  may  be  necessary  to  make  these  provisions  effective. 

Article  13. 

A  member  which  has  ratified  this  convention  may  denounce  it 
after  the  expiration  of  10  years  from  the  date  on  which  the  conven¬ 
tion  first  comes  into  force,  by  an  act  communicated  to  the  secretary 
general  of  the  League  of  Nations  for  registration.  Such  denunciation 
shall  not  take  effect  until  one  year  after  the  date  on  which  it  is 
registered  with  the  secretariat. 

Article  14. 

At  least  once  in  10  years  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office  shall  present  to  the  General  Conference  a  report  on 
the  working  of  this  convention,  and  shall  consider  the  desirability 
of  placing  on  the  agenda  of  the  Conference  the  question  of  its  revision 
or  modification. 

Article  15. 

The  French  and  English  texts  of  this  convention  shall  both  be 
authentic. 


RECOMMENDATION  CONCERNING  THE  APPLICATION  OF  THE 
BERN  CONVENTION  OF  1906,  ON  THE  PROHIBITION  OF  THE 
USE  OF  WHITE  PHOSPHORUS  IN  THE  MANUFACTURE  OF 
MATCHES. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization 
of  the  League  of  Nations, 

Having  been  convened  at  Washington  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  of  America  on  the  29th  day  of  October, 
1919,  and 

Having  decided  upon  the  adoption  of  certain  proposals  with 
regard  to  the  “extension  and  application  of  the  international 
convention  adopted  at  Bern  in  1906  on  the  prohibition  of  the 
use  of  white  phosphorus  in  the  manufacture  of  matches.”  which 
is  part  of  the  fifth  item  in  the  agenda  for  the  Washington  meeting 
of  the  Conference,  and 

Having  determined  that  these  proposals  shall  take  the  form 
of  a  recommendation, 

Adopts  the  following  recommendation,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
members  of  the  International  Labor  Organization  for  consideration 
with  a  view  to  effect  being  given  to  it  by  national  legislation  or 
otherwise,  in  accordance  with  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles 
of  June  28,  1919,  and  the  treaty  of  St.  Germain  of  September  10,  1919: 

The  General  Conference  recommends  that  each  member  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization,  which  has  not  already  done  so, 
should  adhere  to  the  international  convention  adopted  at  Bern  in 
1906  on  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  white  phosphorus  in  the  manu¬ 
facture  of  matches. 


MOTIONS  PRESENTED  BY  DELEGATES 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  BALDESI  (ITALY). 

.  The  International  Labor  Conference,  which  has  met  in  Washington 
to  discuss  the  most  important  problems  affecting  all  the  workers 
in  the  world,  can  not  ignore  the  fact  that  all  countries  art  not  repre¬ 
sented  at  this  first  meeting,  and  while  trusting  that  those  absent  will 
realize  that  it  is  their  duty  to  adhere  to  it  as  soon  as  possible,  ex¬ 
presses  the  wish  that  the  proposal  of  the  Russian  Government  for 
immediate  peace  negotiations  be  accepted  by  the  nations  interested, 
so  as  to  enable  the  representatives  of  this  large  oriental  country 
to  bring,  without  delay,  its  contribution  in  complete  freedom,  after 
having  secured  that  political,  economic,  and  legal  settlement  which 
the  people  of  Russia  shall  choose;  and  this,  according  to  the  principle 
already  established  of  the  right  of  the  nations  to  self-determination. 

(Signed)  Gino  Baldesi, 

Italian  Workers’  Delegate. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  JOUHAUX  (FRANCE),  MR.  OUDE- 
GEEST  (NETHERLANDS),  AND  MR.  MERTENS  (BELGIUM). 

GERMAN  AND  AUSTRIAN  DELEGATIONS. 

The  International  Labor  Conference  at  Washington  having  agreed 
to  admit  Germany  and  Austria,  and  these  countries  having  decided 
to  participate  in  the  conference,  the  officers  of  the  conference  are 
requested  to  take  the  steps  necessary  to  hasten  the  transportation 
of  the  German  and  Austrian  delegates  to  Washington. 

(Signed)  Leon  Jouhaux, 

Jan  Oudegeest, 

Corneille  Mertens, 

Workers'  Delegates. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  ELIZALDE  (ECUADOR)  AND  SECOND¬ 
ED  BY  MR.  GARCIA  (ECUADOR)  AND  MR.  NIETO  DEL  RIO  (CHILE).1 


It  is  proposed  to  invite  Mexico  also  to  the  International  Labor 
Conference. 


(Signed)  Raphael  H.  Elizalde. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  CRAWFORD  (SOUTH  AFRICA). 
ADMISSION  OF  COUNTRIES  NOT  MEMBERS  OF  THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS. 

That  the  attention  of  the  League  of  Nations,  when  created,  be 
drawn  to  the  records  of  the  discussion  on  the  application  of  Finland 
for  admission  to  membership  of  the  International  Labor  Conference, 
with  a  request  that  an  interpretation  be  given  of  the  powers  of  the 
International  Labor  Conference  in  respect  to  the  admission  of  nations 
not  members  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

Further,  that  in  the  event  of  the  decision  of  the  League  being  un¬ 
favorable  to  the  view  expressed  in  the  majority  report  submitted  by 
Mr.  Baldesi,  an  appeal  be  made  to  the  Permanent  Court  of  Interna¬ 
tional  Justice,  when  same  is  created. 

(Signed)  A.  Crawford. 

>  After  having  seconded  this  motion,  Mr.  Nieto  del  Rio  (Chile)  made  the  following 
statement: 

“  As  it  does  not  seem  possible,  according  to  Mr.  Fontaine’s  report,  to  invite  Mexico 
or  other  countries  which  are  not  yet  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  to  participate 
in  the  present  conference,  unless  they  themselves  make  formal  application,  I  no 
longer  insist  upon  seconding  this  motion,  though  it  is  my  intention  to  second  the 
Invitation  to  Mexico  and  other  countries  when  application  is  made.” 


MOTION  OFFERED  BY  MR.  CRAWFORD  (SOUTH  AFRICA). 

The  conference  recognizes  that  a  question  has  arisen  concerning 
the  competence  of  the  Labor  Conference  to  admit  to  the  Labor  Or¬ 
ganization  countries  other  than  Germany  and  Austria  which  may 
not  be  members  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  since  this  question  re¬ 
lates  to  the  interpretation  of  the  labor  part  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
within  the  meaning  of  the  provisions  of  article  423  of  the  treaty 
with  Germany,  it  hereby  directs  the  officials  of  the  conference  to 
draw  the  attention  of  the  council  of  the  League  of  Nations  when 
created  to  the  fact  that  this  question  has  arisen  and  to  the  records 
of  the  discussions  on  the  application  of  Finland  for  admission  to 
membership  in  the  International  Labor  Conference,  with  a  request 
that  the  council  refer  this  question  for  decision  to  the  Permanent 
Court  of  International  Justice  provided  for  in  article  14  of  the  cove¬ 
nant  at  the  earliest  possible  date. 

(Signed)  A.  Crawford, 
Workers’  Delegate,  South  Africa. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  ARCHIBALD  CRAWFORD  (SOUTH 
AFRICA)  TO  AMEND  THE  STANDING  ORDERS. 

AMENDMENT  TO  THE  STANDING  ORDERS. 

To  insert  between  paragraphs  3  and  4  of  the  standing  orders  (as 
adopted  by  the  conference  at  its  meeting  of  November  21, 1919)  the 
following  new  paragraphs: 

A  returning  officer  shall  be  appointed  by  the  conference  to  con¬ 
duct  all  elections  for  membership  in  the  governing  body,  such  officer 
to  be  the  general  secretary  or  other  officer  of  the  conference  not 
connected  with  any  of  the  three  sections  concerned. 

The  returning  officer  shall  fix  a  time  of  meeting  for  each  particular 
section  during  which  no  other  meeting  in  connection  with  the  work 
of  the  conference  is  being  held.  At  the  first  meeting  called  the 
business  shall  be  confined  to  questions  of  procedure  on  which  these 
standing  orders  are  silent.  When  all  questions  of  procedure  are 
disposed  of,  nominations  shall  be  invited,  after  which  the  returning 
officer,  in  consultation  with  the  delegates,  shall  fix  the  date,  time, 
and  place  at  which  the  election  shall  be  conducted.  At  least  24 
hours’  notice  of  election  meetings  must  be  given  to  all  delegates. 

Only  the  delegates  or  substitutes  as  defined  by  article  18  of  the 
standing  orders  shall  take  part  at  meetings  held  in  connection  with 
the  election  of  members  of  the  governing  body. 

(Signed)  A.  Crawford. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  THE  EMPLOYERS’  DELEGATES. 

AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  OF  THE  ORGANIZING 
COMMITTEE  LIMITING  THE  HOURS  OF  WORK. 

Title. 

Replace  the  word  “convention”  by  “recommendation,”  also 
wherever  it  occurs  in  the  text. 

Article  1. 

In  paragraph  (a),  after  the  words  “mines  and  quarries.”  add  the 
words  “and  working  of  oil  or  natural  gas  fields.” 

In  paragraph  (6),  after  the  words  “including  the  generation  and 
transformation,”  add  the  words  “and  transmission  of  power  gener¬ 
ally  (electric,  hydraulic,  etc.).” 


265 


266 


APPENDIX 


After  the  word  "shipbuilding”  add  “alteration  or  demolition  of 
any  building.” 

In  paragraph  ( d ),  omit  the  words  “the  national  law”  and  add  the 
words  “the  competent  authority.” 

After  the  words  “commerce  and  agriculture  on  the  other”  add 
“and  where  necessary  will  simplify  the  appended  lists  after  consulta¬ 
tion  with  the  employers’  and  the  workers’  organizations.” 

All  those  engaged  in  industrial  establishments  handling  or  dis¬ 
tributing  agricultural  products  and  those  engaged  in  afforestation 
will  not  be  subject  to  the  present  recommendation. 

Article  2. 

Add  before  the  words  “working  hours”  the  word  “actual.” 

After  the  words  “with  the  exceptions  hereinafter  provided”  add 
“without  prejudice  to  a  different  number  of  hours  per  week  being 
authorized  by  law  or  by  the  competent  authority,  provided  that  the 
average  length  of  the  working  week  is  48  hours  over  the  period  in 
question.” 

After  the  words  “manual  labor”  add  the  words  “or  for  whom  by 
reason  of  their  occupation  the  limit  of  48  hours  is  impracticable.” 

Article  3. 

Instead  of  the  words  “in  case  of  accident”  read  the  words  “either 
for  preventing  accident  or  in  making  good  repairs  after  accident, 
in  case  of  *  * 

After  the  words  “force  majeure”  add  the  words  “or  unforeseen  or 
uncontrollable  circumstances.” 

Add  a  new  paragraph  (&); 

Work  may  be  extended  beyond  48  hours  per  week,  with  the  authorization  of  the 
competent  authorities  or  by  agreement  between  the  employers  and  workpeople 
concerned,  in  industries  where  interruption  of  work  may  be  caused  through  accident, 
or  other  emergency,  such  as  accident  to  material,  interruption  of  power  supply  or 
through  disaster,  drought,  flood,  or  bad  weather,  provided  that  the  number  of  hours 
worked  in  excess  of  48  shall  in  no  case  exceed  the  number  of  hours  of  time  actually 
lost. 

Article  4. 

After  the  words  “The  industries  included  in  schedule  A  shall  be 
regarded  as  industries  to  which  this  article  applies”  add  the  following: 

The  competent  authority  will,  where  necessary,  amplify  the  schedule  after  con¬ 
sultation  with  the  employers’  and  the  workers’  organizations. 

Article  5. 

Revise  article  5  as  follows: 

Thelimit  of  48  hours  may  be  extended  to  SO  for  those  workmen  who  are  required 
to  attend  either  before  or  after  the  normal  working  day  for  preparing,  clearing  up,  or 
maintenance,  etc.  For  this  purpose  the  competent  authority  will,  where  necessary, 
amplify  schedule  B  after  consultation  with  the  employers’  and  the  workers’  organ¬ 
izations. 

The  limits  mentioned  above  may  be  extended  in  the  case  of  those 
workmen  whose  attendance  is  necessary  but  whose  work  is  casual  or 
intermittent. 

Article  6. 

Paragraph  (a),  instead  of  “150  hours”  put  “300  hours.” 

Omit  the  words,  “Subject  to  the  condition  that  a  worker,  when 
employed  overtime,  shall  receive  a  rate  of  pay  which  shall  be  higher 
by  at  least  25  per  cent  than  his  normal  rate  of  pay.” 

Paragraph  (6),  instead  of  “150  hours”  put  “300  hours  in  the  year 
during  the  next  five  years  and  afterwards  150.” 

Add  paragraph  (c): 

For  transport  by  rail  special  regulations  insuring  the  regular  maintenance  of  the 
sendee  may  be  applied  in  the  case  of  persons  employed  in  the  working  of  trains. 
The  same  shall  apply  in  the  case  of  persons  employed  in  connection  with  inland 
navigation. 

Article  7. 

No  change  in  this  article. 

Article  8. 

No  change  in  this  article. 


Article  9. 

Amendment  to  this  article  is  reserved  until  the  publication  of  the 
proposals  of  the  Commission  on  Special  Countries. 

Article  10. 

After  the  words  “national  safety”  add  the  words  “or  to  insure  the 
maintenance  of  a  public  service.” 

Article  11. 

Add: 

The  enforcement  of  the  present  recommendations  in  those  countries  which  have 
up  to  the  present  time  adhered  to  the  International  Labor  Conference  is  subject  to 
the  formal  acceptance  thereof  by  the  following  countries:  Austria,  Belgium,  Canada, 
Cuba,  Denmark,  France,  -Germany,  Great  Britain,  Holland,  India,  Italy,  Norway, 
Japan,  Poland,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  Czecho-Slovakia,  and  the 
United  States,  at  the  date  fixed  by  the  signatories  and  not  later  than  July  1,  1921. 

Article  12  (New). 

TRANSITION  AND  SPECIAL  POSTWAR  CONDITIONS. 

(а)  Devastated  regions. — -With  a  view  to  effecting  speedy  and  necessary  reconstruc¬ 
tion  of  industry  in  the  regions  devastated  during  the  war,  the  conference  recommends 
deferring,  for  a  period  not  exceeding  5  years,  the  application  of  the  48-hour  week 
in  undertakings  for  reparation  and  reconstruction,  in  all  cases  where  such  a  limita¬ 
tion  of  the  hours  of  work  is  clearly  of  such  a  nature  as  to  endanger  the  restoration  of 
such  regions. 

This  measure  may  be  taken— 

1.  By  legislation  in  those  countries  in  which  the  enforcement  of  the  new  conditions 
of  labor  is  fixed  by  law. 

2.  By  agreement  between  employers  and  workers  in  those  countries  in  which  legis¬ 
lation  leaves  to  agreements  of  this  nature  the  duty  ot  fixing  the  date  of  enforcement 
of  the  new  conditions  of  labor. 

(б)  All  countries  without  distinction. — With  a  view  to  reducing  the  high  cost  of 
living,  which  is  an  inevitable  consequence  of  the  shortage  of  products  and  of  the 
difficulty  of  distributing  them,  the  conference  recommends  deferring  likewise,  for  a 
period  not  to  exceed  five  years,  the  enforcement  of  the  48-hour  week  in  industries 
whose  products  are  indispensable  for  food  supply,  and  in  transport  industries. 

These  exceptions  shall  not  be  put  into  effect  except  by  virtue  of  international  agree¬ 
ments  emanating  from  the  International  Labor  Office,  as  special  conditions  for  a 
definite  length  of  time  terminating  with  the  reestablishment  cf  normal  conditions  of 
production. 

A  report  will  be  submitted  to  future  labor  conferences  with  regard  to  the  excep¬ 
tions  thus  granted. 


Title.- — The  title  to  read  as  follows: 

Draft  of  a  convention  to  limit  the  hours  of  work  in  industrial  and  commercial 
undeitakings  to  8  hours  in  the  day  and  48  in  the  week  as  maxima  in  both  cases. 

(Signed)  L.  Jouhaux, 

T.  Shaw. 

MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  THE  WORKERS  DELEGATES. 

AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  OF  THE  ORGANIZING 
COMMITTEE  LIMITING  THE  HOURS  OF  WORK. 

Article  1.  (1)  After  the  word  “industrial”  insert  “and  commer¬ 
cial.” 

(2)  After  the  word  “undertakings”  insert  “public  or  private 
and  to  all  branches  thereof  of  whatsoever  kind.” 

(3)  After  the  word  “employed”  add  “it  being  understood  that 
home  work  is  not  included  in  this  exception.” 

(4)  ( d )  After  “rail”  insert  “by  sea  or  by  canal.” 

(5)  ( d )  Omit  the  words  “but  excluding  transport  by  hand.” 

(6)  ( d )  Omit  the  final  paragraph  reading  “  the  national  law  *  *  * 
on  the  other.” 

Art.  2.  (1)  After  the  word  “exceed  ”  insert  the  words  “8-hours  in 
the  day  and.” 

(2)  For  the  words  “with  the  exceptions  hereinafter  provided ” 
substitute  the  words  “subject  only  to  exception  in  case  of  fire,  flood, 
and  other  similar  unforeseen  catastrophes.” 

(3)  After  the  words  “confidential  capacity”  omit  the  words  “who 
are  not  usually  employed  in  manual  labor.” 

(4)  For  the  words  “over  a  period  of  one  month  or  less”  read  “over 
a  period  of  three  weeks.” 


APPENDIX 


2(57 


Art.  3.  (1)  After  “limit”  insert  “of  8-hours  in  the  day  and.” 

(2)  After  the  word  “exceeded”  insert  the  words  “subject  to  a 
compensating  period  of  rest  being  given.  ” 

(3)  After  the  word  “plant”  omit  the  words  “or  other  emergency.” 

(4)  After  the  words  “or  other  emergency”  substitute  “and”  for 
“but”. 

Art.  4.  That  the  article  do  read  as  follows: 

In  the  industries  which  are  required,  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  industry,  to  be 
carried  on  continually  by  a  succession  of  shifts  the  limitation  ot  the  rest  from  work 
shall  not  affect  any  holidays  which  may  be  required  by  law  to  be  allowed  to  the 
workers,  including  the  weekly  day  of  rest  to  which  all  workers  are  entitled. 

Art.  5.  (1)  After  the  word  “limit”  insert  “of  8  hours  in  the  day 
may  be  extended  to  9  hours  and  the  limit  of  48  hours  in  the  week.” 

(2)  For  “60”  read  “54.” 

Art.  6.  That  the  article  do  read  as  follows:  , 

In  seasonal  industries,  overtime  may  be  worked  for  not  more  than  70  hours  in  the 
year,  subject  to  the  condition  that  all  work  in  excess  of  eight  hours  a  day  shall  be 
paid  for  at  a  rate  not  less  than  50  per  cent  in  excess  of  the  ordinary  rate  of  remu¬ 
neration. 

Art.  8  (a): 

(1)  For  “of  a  notice  posted  ”  read  “of  the  posting  of  notices  in  con¬ 
spicuous  places.” 

(2)  For  the  words  “except  with  such  notice  and  in  such  manner 
as  may  be  approved  by  the  Government”  read  “except  by  agree¬ 
ment  between  the  workers’  and  employers’  organizations,  and  with 
the  sanction  of  the  Government.” 

(c)  For  the  words  “by  the  national  law  or  order  of  the  executive 
Government”  read  “by  the  International  Labor  Office.” 

Art.  9.  After  the  words  “climatic  conditions”  omit  the  words 
“the  imperfect  development  of  industrial  organization  or  other 
special  circumstances.” 

Art.  11.  For  “1921”  read  “1920.” 

Schedule  A.  Omit  this  schedule. 

Schedule  B.  Omit  paragraphs  ii  and  vii. 

Schedule  C.  Omit  this  schedule. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  DR.  NOLENS  (NETHERLANDS)  AND  MR. 

MAHAIM  (BELGIUM)  AMENDING  ARTICLE  2  OF  THE  DRAFT 

CONVENTION  ON  HOURS  OF  WORK. 

We  propose  that  Article  2  of  the  draft  convention  limiting  the 
hours  of  work  be  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

Article  2. 

1.  The  working  hours  of  employed  persons  shall  not  exceed  8  hours 

in  the  day  and  48  in  the  week,  with  the  exceptions  hereinafter  pro¬ 
vided.  • 

2.  The  provisions  of  this  convention  shall  not  apply  to  persons 
holding  positions  of  supervision  or  management  or  employed  in  a 
confidential  capacity  who  are  not  usually  employed  in  manual  labor. 

3.  Where  by  law,  custom,  or  agreement  between  employers’  or 
workers’  organizations  the  hours  of  work  on  one  or  more  days  of  the 
week  are  less  than  eight,  the  limit  of  eight  hours  may  be  exceeded  on 
the  remaining  days  of  the  week  by  sanction  of  the  competent  author¬ 
ity,  or  by  agreement  between  the  employers’  or  workers’  organiza¬ 
tions  concerned:  Provided,  however,  That  in  no  circumstances  shall 
the  daily  limit  of  eight  hours  of  work  be  exceeded  by  more  than 
one  hour.1 

4.  Where  persons  are  employed  in  shifts  it  shall  be  permissible  to 
■employ  persons  in  excess  of  8  hours  in  any  day  and  48  in  any  week, 
if  average  number  of  hours  over  a  period  of  one  month  or  less  does 
not  exceed  8  per  day  and  for  48  hours  per  week. 

(Signed)  Dr.  Nolens. 

Mahaim. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  JOUHAUX  AND  MR.  BALDESI. 

PROTECTION  OF  WAGE  STANDARDS  OF  WORKERS. 

The  undersigned  move  the  adoption  of  the  following: 

The  conference  declares  that  in  no  case  should  the  wages  of  work¬ 
ers  be  reduced  simply  by  reason  of  the  introduction  of  the  8-hour 

>  In  order  to  provide  for  change  of  shift  in  continuous  processes. 


day  and  the  48-hour  week,  in  order  that  the  conditions  which 
exist  in  certain  industries  and  which  the  present  convention  allows 
to  continue  may  not  be  aggravated  by  the  imposition  of  lower  wages 
on  the  workers. 

(Signed)  Leon  Jouhaux, 

Gino  Baldesi, 

Workers'  Delegates. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  SENATOR  R.  G.  H.  VON  KOCH  (SWEDEN) 
AND  DR.  GUNNER  HUSS  (SWEDEN). 

amendments  to  draft  convention  to  limit  the  hours  of  work. 

We  propose  the  following  amendments  to  the  draft  convention 
limiting  the  hours  of  work: 

Art.  4.  The  following  branches  of  industry  should  be  added  to 
those  enumerated  in  schedule  A,  under  I.  b.,  viz.,  continuous  proc¬ 
esses  in  the  manufacture  of  wood  pulp  and  raw  sugar;  in  the 
burning  of  lime,  bricks,  porcelain,  and  pottery;  and  in  the  manufac¬ 
ture  of  peat  and  charcoal. 

Art.  5.  Considering  that  the  proposed  extension  of  the  hours  of 
work  from  48  to  60  hours  is  excessive  for  all  workers  mentioned  in 
schedule  B,  excepting  those  enumerated  under  paragraph  VII, 
viz.,  watchmen,  etc.,  we  propose  that  the  said  extension  be  reduced 
for  all  workers  enumerated  under  paragraphs  I-VI,  and  be  fixed  at, 
for  instance,  55  hours. 

Art.  6.  For  hygienic  reasons  we  propose  that  the  hours  of  over¬ 
time  work  stipulated  in  both  paragraphs  of  this  article  be  limited 
also  per  month. 

For  the  same  reason  we  propose  that  overtime  work  be  permitted 
only  for  workers  18  years  old  or  more. 

(Signed)  R.  G.  H.  Von  Koch, 
Gunnar  Huss, 

.  Swedish  Government  Delegates. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  TAYERLE  (CZECHO-SLOVAKIA). 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  CONVENTION  TO  COMMERCE  AND 
AGRICULTURE. 

I  present,  as  an  essential  amendment  to  the  draft  submitted  by 
the  organizing  committee,  concerning  the  8-hour  day,  the  fol¬ 
lowing: 

The  principle  of  the  8-hour  day  should  also  be  extended  to  commerce  and  agri¬ 
culture  and  made  adaptable  by  appropriate  national  legislation  to  conditions  existing 
in  those  productive  groups. 

(Signed)  Robt.  Tayerle, 
Workers’  Delegate  from  Czechoslovakia. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  CRAWFORD  (SOUTH  AFRICA). 

AMENDMENT  TO  ARTICLE  1  OF  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION. 

Amendment  to  article  1  of  the  draft  convention  re  limitation  of 
hours,  etc.: 

That  the  words,  “Other  than  undertakings  in  which  only  the 
members  of  the  family  are  employed”  be  deleted. 

(Signed)  Archibald  Crawford, 

Workers'  Delegate  from  South  Africa. 


AMENDMENT  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  JOSHI  TO  THE  REPORT  OF  THE 

COMMISSION  ON  THE  APPLICATION  OF  THE  48-HOUR  WEEK  TO 

SPECIAL  COUNTRIES. 

I  propose  to  move  the  following  amendments  to  the  report  ot  the 
commission  appointed  by  the  conference  to  consider  the  application 
of  the  principle  of  the  48-hour  week  to  tropical  countries.  Add  to 
the  proposed  convention  concerning  India: 

(1)  The  word  “factory”  in  the  convention  to  be  applied  to  India  should  mean 
“Any  industry  worked  with  steam,  water,  or  any  other  mechanical  power  or  elec¬ 
trical  power  and  employing  not  less  than  10  persons.” 

(2)  The  hours  of  work  for  women  employed  in  factories  shall  not  exceed  54  a  week. 

(3)  Children  under  14  shall  not  be  employed  for  more  than  30  hours  a  week. 

(Signed)  N.  M.  Josm, 
Workers’  Delegate  from  India. 


268 


APPENDIX 


AMENDMENT  PRESENTED  BY  MESSRS.  OUDEGEEST  (NETHER¬ 
LANDS),  JOUHAUX  (FRANCE),  AND  MERTENS  (BELGIUM). 

APPLICATION  TO  JAPAN  OF  THE  CONVENTION  ON  THE  8-HOURS  DAY 
AND  THE  48-HOURS  WEEK. 

The  conference,  being  of  opinion  that  the  industrial  condition  of 
Japan  is  such  as  to  require  the  application  of  the  8-hour  day  and 
the  48-hour  week  to  all  industries  and  that  such  application  is  pos¬ 
sible  within  two  years,  decides  that  the  general  convention  shall 
come  into  force  in  Japan  not  later  than  January  1,  1922. 

(Signed)  J.  Oudegeest. 

L.  Jouhaux. 

C.  Mertens. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MESSRS.  ORGHIDAN  AND  MICHAESCO 

(ROUMANIA). 

APPLICATION  TO  ROUMANIA  OF  THE  CONVENTION  LIMITING  HOURS  OF 

WORK. 

In  conformity  with  article  405  of  the  Versailles  peace  treaty  and 
article  9  of  the  draft  convention  of  the  Organizing  Committee,  we 
request  that  in  the  enforcement  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour 
week  a  delay  be  granted  to  Roumania  of  not  less  than  three  years 
from  the  time  when  the  aforesaid  convention  shall  go  into  effect, 
in  conformity  with  article  11  of  the  draft  convention. 

(Signed)  Constant  Orghidan, 
Gregoire  Michaesco, 
Government  Delegates  from  Roumania. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MESSRS.  SOFIANOPOULOS  AND  SKINZO- 
POULOS  (GREECE). 

APPLICATION  TO  GREECE  OF  THE  CONVENTION  LIMITING  THE  HOURS 

OF  WORK. 

In  conformity  with  article  405  of  the  Versailles  peace  treaty,  and 
article  9  of  the  draft  convention  of  the  Organizing  Committee,  we 
request  that  in  the  enforcement  of  the  8-hour  day  or  the  48-hour  week 
a  delay  be  granted  to  Greece  of  not  less  than  3  years  from  the 
time  when  the  aforesaid  convention  shall  go  into  effect,  in  con¬ 
formity  with  article  11  of  the  draft  convention. 

(Signed)  I.  A.  Sofianopoulos, 

A.  L.  Skinzopoulos, 
Government  Delegates  from  Greece. 


AMENDMENT  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  ROBERTSON  (CANADA). 

APPLICATION  IN  COUNTRIES  WHICH  OBSERVE  THE  SATURDAY  HALF 
HOLIDAY  OF  THE  CONVENTION  LIMITING  THE  HOURS  OF  WORK. 

I  propose  that  article  2  of  the  convention  limiting  the  hours  of 
work  be  amended  as  follows: 

The  working  hours  ol  employed  persons  shall  not  exceed  8  hours  per  day  or  48 
hours  in  the  week,  except  as  hereinafter  provided.  Where  Saturday  half  holiday 
is  observed  and  when  no  agreement  to  the  contrary  exists,  hours  worked  may  exceed 
8  per  day,  but  no  more  than  9  per  day  or  48  in  any  week. 

(Signed)  G.  D.  Robertson. 


AMENDMENT  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  BARNES  (GREAT  BRITAIN). 

I  propose  that  article  2  of  the  draft  convention  limiting  the  hours 
of  work  be  amended  as  follows:  aRer  the  word  “provided”  insert, 
“but  the  distribution  of  the  hours  per  day  shall  be  determined  by 
the  competent  national  authority  according  to  the  requirements 
of  the  industries,  due  consideration  being  given  to  representations 
which  may  be  made  by  organizations  of  employers  and  workers 
where  such  may  exist.” 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  JOUHAUX  (FRANCE)  ON  BEHALF 
OF  THE  WORKERS’  DELEGATES. 

AMENDMENT  TO  THE  TITLE  OF  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION. 

That  the  title  of  the  draft  convention  do  read  as  follows: 

Draft  of  a  convention  to  limit  the  hours  of  work  in  industrial  and  commercial  under¬ 
takings  to  a  maximum  of  eight  hours  a  day  and  forty-eight  hours  a  week. 

(Signed)  Leon  Jouhaux, 

For  the  Workers'  Delegates. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  ROWELL  (CANADA). 

REFERENCE  OF  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  AND  AMENDMENTS  TO  A 
SPECIAL  COMMISSION. 

Resolved,  That  the  draft  convention  and  the  proposed  amendments 
thereto,  submitted  by  or  on  behalf  of  employers’,  workers’,  and 
Governments’  delegates,  be  referred  to  a  commission,  to  be  ap¬ 
pointed,  for  consideration  and  report. 

(Signed)  Newton  W.  Rowell. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MESSRS.  GUfiRIN  (FRANCE)  AND 
SCHINDLER  (SWITZERLAND). 

STUDIES  AND  INVESTIGATIONS  PREPARATORY  TO  THE  NEXT  CON¬ 
FERENCE. 

The  report  of  the  Commission  on  Unemployment,  a  summary  of  the 
work  undertaken  by  the  various  subcommittees,  takes  up  two  well- 
defined  series  of  questions,  a  certain  number  of  which  were  not 
included  in  the  agenda  of  the  conference. 

Some  deal  with  documentation  which  it  is  proposed  to  obtain  by 
means  of  international  conventions,  but  which  it  would  be  infinitely 
more  practical  and  more  speedy  to  have  collected  by  the  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Office  without  further  delay. 

The  others  aim  to  make  use  of  conventions,  recommendations,  or 
resolutions  for  bringing  about  reciprocal  agreements  on  emigration, 
insurance,  and  pensions,  rights  of  organization,  and  other  matters  of 
extreme  importance;  but  at  the  present  moment  there  are  great 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  creating  a  uniform  universal  system  on 
account  of  the  legislation  in  force  in  the  various  countries. 

It  is  recommended,  therefore,  that  the  conclusions  in  this  report  be 
referred  to  the  governing  body,  in  order  that  between  now  and  the 
next  session  it  may  direct  those  departments,  the  organization  of 
which  may  be  considered  necessary,  to  proceed  with  the  studies 
and  the  necessary  preliminary  Vork. 

(Signed)  Louis  Guerin. 

Dietrich  Schindler. 


AMENDMENT  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  OF  THE  COMMISSION 
ON  UNEMPLOYMENT  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  GEMMILL. 

That  the  following  words  be  added  at  the  end  of  the  draft  resolu 
tion: 

The  representation  of  States  in  the  European  Continent  on  the  commission  shall  be 
limited  to  one-half  of  the  total  membership  of  the  commission. 

(Signed)  W.  Gemmill, 

South  African  Employers'  Delegate. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  BALDESI  (ITALY).  > 

RECIPROCITY  OF  TREATMENT  OF  FOREIGN  WORKERS. 

Whereas  the  supreme  council  of  the  allied  and  associated  powers 
passed  a  resolution  upon  August  29,  1919,  to  refer  the  resolution 
of  the  commission  on  labor  of  June  4,  1919,  to  the  International 
Labor  Conference  at  Washington,  and 


(Signed) 


G.  N.  Barnes. 


Motion  seconded  by  Mr.  Sokal  (Poland). 


APPENDIX 


269 


Whereas  the  Organizing  Committee  of  the  conference  has  not  been 
able  to  report  upon  the  question,  therefore  be  it 
Resolved,  That  the  International  Labor  Conference  name  a  com¬ 
mission  of  seven  members  with  instructions  to  study  the  principle 
of  equality  of  treatment  as  the  basis  of  reciprocity  between  aliens  and 
nationals  and  to  present  a  report  upon  that  subject. 

(Signed)  Gino  Baldesi. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  EMPLOYERS’  GROUP. 

AMENDMENT  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  ON  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF 
WOMEN  DURING  THE  NIGHT. 

The  stipulations  of  the  Bern  convention  are  retained  with  the 
following  addition: 

In  industries  where  work  will  have  to  be  arranged  in  two  shifts, 
owing  to  application  of  the  8-hour  day,  the  employment  of  women 
shall  be  authorized  between  10  p.  m.  and  4  a.  m.  or  between  11  p.  m. 
and  5  a.  m.,  providing  that  the  work  of  each  shift  be  divided  by  one 
hour  of  rest  (i.  e.,  for  each  shift,  4  hours  of  work,  1  hour  of  rest,  4 
hours  of  work). 

(Signed)  The  Employers’  Delegates  to  the 

International  Labor  Conference. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  BALDESI  (ITALY)  WITH  REFERENCE 
TO  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  EMPLOYMENT 
OF  WOMEN  AT  NIGHT. 

To  add  the  following  article: 

The  provisions  of  article  2  of  the  Bern  convention  shall  be  modified  in  the  following 
manner:  The  night  rest  shall  terminate  at  6  o’clock  in  the  morning  and  the  working 
period  by  day  shall  terminate  at  10  o’clock  in  the  evening  in  the  case  of  industries  in 
which  two  shifts  are  worked.  A  rest  of  half  an  hour  for  each  shift  shall  be  included 

in  the  period  of  work. 

(Signed)  Gino  Baldesi, 

Italian  Workers’  Delegate. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MISS  MACARTHUR  (GREAT  BRITAIN). 

AMENDMENT  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN 
BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH. 

To  delete  article  8. 

(Signed)  Mary  R.  MacArthur, 
Substitute  for  Mr.  Sluart-Bunning,  British  Workers’  Delegate. 


AMENDMENT  PROPOSED  BY  MR.  JOUHAUX  (FRANCE)  TO  THE 
DRAFT  CONVENTION  CONCERNING  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF 
WOMEN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH. 

To  modify  articles  1  and  4  of  the  draft  convention  as  follows: 
Article  1.  Women  wage  earners  shall  not  be  employed  during  the  six  weeks  im¬ 
mediately  following  confinement,  and  durmg  this  period  of  rest  they  shall  receive 
compensation  as  stated  in  the  article  below. 

Art.  4.  The  indemnity  mentioned  in  articles  1  and  2  shall  be  paid  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment. 

(Signed)  Leon  Jouhaux, 

French  Workers’  Delegate. 


AMENDMENTS  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  ON  THE  EMPLOY¬ 
MENT  OF  WOMEN  BEFORE  AND  AFTER  CHILDBIRTH,  PRE¬ 
SENTED  BY  MESSRS.  POSADA  AND  MARIN  (SPAIN). 

Article  1:  For  the  last  paragraph  substitute  the  following: 

In  each  country  the  competent  authority  shall  determine  the  line  of  demarcation 
between  industry  and  commerce  on  the  one  hand  and  agriculture  on  the  other  hand. 

Section  ( b ),  first  paragraph,  same  article,  ought  to  read  after  the 
words  “finished  or  adapted  for  sale”:  “and  for  commercial  sale.” 

Suppression  of  article  3,  the  principle  of  which  is  contained  in  the 
first  words  of  article  1. 


Article  2:  Between  the  words  “industrial”  and  “undertaking” 
insert  the  words  “or  commercial.” 

Article  7 :  Before  the  words  “system  of  insurance  ”  insert  the  word 
“compulsory,”  and  add  a  new  paragraph,  as  follows: 

In  every  case  the  compensaiion  or  the  insurance  shall  be  determined,  if  possible, 
by  taking  into  account  the  number  of  children  of  the  workers  co  vered  by  the  present 
convention. 

(Signed)  Adolfo  Posada, 

J.  Gascon  Marin, 

Spanish  Government  Delegates. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  STUART-BUNNING  (GREAT  BRITAIN). 

AMENDMENT  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  ON  THE  ADMISSION  OF 
CHILDREN  TO  INDUSTRIAL  EMPLOYMENT. 

Replace  clause  5  by  the  following: 

In  the  application  of  the  convention  to  India,  the  following  modifications  may  take 
effect: 

Children  under  12  should  not  be  employed— 

(а)  In  factories  working  with  power,  employing  more  than  10  person*. 

(б)  In  mines  and  quarries. 

(c)  On  railroads. 

(<2)  On  docks. 

(Signed)  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning, 

British  Workers’  Delegate. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  SALA  (SPAIN). 

AMENDMENT  TO  THE  REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT 

OF  CHILDREN. 

Inasmuch  as  the  preamble  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  part  13,  refers  to 
the  organizing  of  technical  education  as  one  of  the  principal  means 
of  improving  the  conditions  of  the  working  people  in  all  countries, 
the  undersigned,  the  employers’  delegate  from  Spain,  has  the  honor 
to  submit  to  the  conference  the  following  recommendation  to  be 
added  to  the  report  of  the  commission  on  the  employment  of  children 
in  industrial  undertakings: 

Vocational  education  should  be  the  object  of  special  consideration  in  all  countries, 
with  a  view  to  its  being  established  in  countries  where  it  has  not  been  already  estab¬ 
lished,  or  with  a  view  to  its  improvement  in  other  cases,  regard  being  had  to  the  neces¬ 
sities  of  each  country  and  to  the  betterment  of  the  working  classes. 

(Signed)  A.  Sala. 


AMENDMENT  PROPOSED  BY  MR.  SOFIANOPOULOS  (GREECE)  TO 
ARTICLE  I  OF  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  REGULATING  THE  AGE 
OF  ADMISSION  OF  CHILDREN  TO  INDUSTRIAL  WORK. 

That  countries  which  have  not  yet  introduced  vocational  training 
shall  benefit  by  an  extension  of  three  years  from  the  time  when  the 
convention  shall  go  into  effect  for  the  various  countries. 

That  during  this  period  these  countries  shall  be  authorized  to  per¬ 
mit  the  employment  in  the  above-mentioned  industries  of  children 
who  have  not  yet  fully  completed  14  years  of  age  but  have  passed 
the  age  of  12,  on  condition  that  these  children  shall  have  received 
an  elementary  school  certificate  and  on  condition  that  they  shall 
produce  a  medical  certificate  of  physical  ability,  as  may  be  required 
by  the  legislation  of  each  country. 

(Signed)  J.  Sofianopoulos, 

Greek  Government  Delegate. 


AMENDMENT  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  VON  KOCH  (SWEDEN)  TO  THE 
DRAFT  CONVENTION,  TO  PROHIBIT  THE  NIGHT  WORK  OF 
YOUNG  PERSONS  IN  INDUSTRY. 

The  language  of  article  2  (a)  is,  I  take  it,  intended  to  permit  a  State 
to  suspend  the  convention  in  the  event  of  a  great  emergency  such  as 
fire  or  flood.  The  language  of  this  clause  is,  however,  so  general  as 
to  enable  a  State  to  suspend  the  convention  if,  for  any  reason  what¬ 
soever,  it  were  in  its  interest  to  do  so.  There  will,  1  hope,  be  no 


270 


APPENDIX 


opposition  to  making  this  clause  sufficiently  precise  to  insure  the 
interpretation  which  is  intended.  I  therefore  propose  to  move  the 
substitution  of  new  clause  (a)  as  follows: 

(a)  If,  in  case  of  serious  emergency,  the  public  interest  requires  it. 

(Signed)  R.  G.  H.  von  Koch. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  H.  WARINGTON  SMYTH  (SOUTH 

AFRICA). 

AMENDMENT  TO  THE  DRAFT  CONVENTION  TO  PROHIBIT  THE  NIGHT 
WORK  OF  YOUNG  PERSONS  EMPLOYED  IN  INDUSTRY. 

Add  to  article  3,  paragraph  (a)  the  following  words:  “Reduction 
of  gold  ore.” 

(Signed)  H.  Warington  Smyth. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  MIAUL  (GREAT  BRITAIN). 

That  an  advisory  committee  on  which  the  Governments,  the 
employers,  and  the  workers  should  all  be  represented,  be  appointed 
to  act  in  an  auxiliary  capacity  and  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  activi¬ 
ties  of  the  health  department  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 

(Signed)  S.  Miall. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  THE  DELEGATION  OF  ECUADOR. 

This  Labor  Conference  was  created  for  the  all-important  end  of 
reaching  such  solutions  as  would  tend  to  eliminate  from  the  world 
differences  growing  out  of  the  conflicting  interests  of  labor  and  capital 
in  the  evolution  of  human  progress. 

The  aims  of  the  program  sketched  in  the  treaty  of  Versailles  for 
consideration  by  this  conference  are  plain,  not  only  in  the  sense  of 
'seeking  a  reasonable  limitation  of  work  (No.  9),  in  seeking  improve¬ 
ments  in  working  conditions,  but  also  in  preventing  or  providing 
against  unemployment  (No.  10).  These  aims  evidently  spring  from 
a  sense  of  social  justice.  We  may  secure  their  realization  by  the 
consideration  and  adoption  of  such  means  as  are  appropriate,  within 
the  program  proposed  by  the  organizing  committee,  and  by  the 
means  suggested  to  us  through  a  full  and  free  discussion  of  the 
problem. 

The  principle  of  the  division  of  labor  is  an  axiom  of  political 
economy,  the  practical  application  of  which  to  industry  has  pro¬ 
duced  beneficial  results.  To  apply  that  principle  to  the  inner 
organization  of  nations,  in  order  to  obtain  a  maximum  extension  of 
work  to  the  masses,  will  of  itself  prevent  the  intensity  of  individual 
work,  work  that,  at  the  present  time,  is  performed  exclusively 
by  those  who  work  voluntarily,  a  fact  that  produces  for  the  other 
portion  of  mankind  (that  which  does  not  work)  a  liberty  that  should 
be  denied  by  civilization,  namely,  the  unrestricted  liberty  of 
idleness. 

When  the  most  advanced  peoples  of  the  world  have  just  put  an 
end  to  the  most  disastrous  war  which  history  has  known,  when 
humanity  is  endeavoring  to  make  up  the  losses  sustained  in  every 
sense,  it  would  seem  that  the  opportunity  is  ripe  to  make  universal 
labor  compulsory,  as.  a  logical  conclusion  of  the  application  of  the 
principle  of  “preventing  or  providing  against  unemployment.” 

Everyone  should  be  a  producer.  The  day  when  the  idleness  of 
those  who  can  work  shall  no  longer  exist;  the  day  when  everyone 
shall  work;  the  day  when  vagrancy  shall  become  a  mere  memory 
of  the  times  of  an  inferior  civilization;  that  day  will  mark  the  passing 
out  of  the  injustice  of  the  coexistence  of  drones  and  workers  in  the 
great  beehive  of  the  world.  And  there  will  be  no  social  question 
then,  no  labor  problem,  or  whatever  it  may  be  called. 

The  original  sin  did  not  inflict  punishment  on  man  when  it 
imposed  upon  him  the  duty  of  earning  his  bread  by  the  sweat  of 
his  brow.  Infinite  Wisdom  gave  us  thereby  an  auspicious  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  redemption.  This  redemption  has  not  yet  been  attained 
by  all  men;  the  result  is  that  the  idleness  of  some  counterbalances 
the  work  of  others. 


The  possession  of  wealth  should  not  be  cause  for  exemption  from 
the  obligation  of  personal  work,  just  as  it  does  not  grant  exemption 
from  compulsory  military  service.  Reasons  appear  stronger  for  not 
granting  such  exemption  when  we  consider  that  compulsory  personal 
work  will  secure  life  and  progress,  while  compulsory  military  service 
carries  with  it  the  fatal  issues  of  death  and  ruin. 

The  English  aristocrat  and  the  English  commoner  but  a  short 
while  ago  became,  overnight,  joint  members  of  the  laboring  class, 
in  order  to  resist  a  formidable  strike  which  threatened  the  complete 
paralysis  of  the  life  of  the  nation.  This  sudden  temporary  disap¬ 
pearance  of  class  differences  in  the  field  of  labor  brought  about  a 
reaction  which  prevented,  for  the  benefit  of  all,  the  catastrophe 
always  roduced  when  the  laws  of  nature  are  upset  by  unusual 
accidents. 

Let  us  make  equality  permanent  in  the  field  of  labor  as  it  is  in 
the  field  of  law.  Thus,  it  would  seem  to  lead  to  the  abolition  of 
existing  differences  and  the  elimination  of  the  relation  of  oppressor 
and  oppressed,  now  responsible  for  the  social  unbalance  of  the  world, 
and  to  insure  better  days  to  humanity. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  considerations,  the  delegation  of  the 
Republic  of  Ecuador  moves  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution : 

Universal  Compulsory  Labor. 

Whereas  the  principle  of  the  division  of  labor  is  an  axiom  of  political  economy; 
Whereas  it  is  unfair  that  only  a  portion  of  humanity  should  work; 

Whereas  humankind  is  redeemed  and  progresses  through  labor;  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  International  Labor  Conference:  To  recommend  to  all  Governments 
the  necessity  of  adopting  suitable  legislation  in  order  to  establish  universal  compul¬ 
sory  labor,  in  keeping  with  individual  aptitudes  and  in  accordance  with  the  limi¬ 
tations  imposed  by  a  proper  regard  for  health  and  human  life. 

(Signedl  R.  H.  Elizalde. 

J.  Cueva  Garcia. 


MOTION  OFFERED  BY  A  GROUP  OF  DELEGATES. 

GENERAL  AND  VOCATIONAL  INSTRUCTION  FOR  YOUNG  PERSONS  OF 

BOTH  SEXES. 

The  undersigned  move  that  the  International  Labor  Conference 
adopt  the  following  resolution  in  conformity  with  the  last  paragraph 
of  article  402  of  the  treaty  of  peace: 

The  International  Labor  Conference,  recalling  that,  according  to 
article  427  of  the  peace  treaty,  the  permanent  machinery  provided 
for  in  section  1  of  part  13  has  been  framed  “in  order  to  further  the 
well-being,  physically,  morally,  and  intellectually  of  the  industrial 
wage  earner”; 

Referring  to  paragraph  6  of  the  article  above  mentioned  in  which 
“the  abolition  of  child  labor  and  the  imposition  of  such  limitations 
upon  the  employment  of  young  persons  as  shall  permit  the  con¬ 
tinuance  of  their  education  and  assure  their  proper  physical  devel¬ 
opment”  are  especially  recommended; 

Considering  that  no  task  is  more  urgent  than  to  increase  the  gen¬ 
eral  and  technical  proficiency  of  the  workers; 

Considering  especially  that  their  progress  in  that  direction  at  the 
same  time  increases  the  efficiency  of  labor  and  enables  the  workman 
to  share  effectively  the  responsibility  incurred  in  the  conduct  of 
industry; 

Recognizing  on  the  other  hand  that  there  may  be  such  economic 
circumstances  as  may  render  it  difficult  for  a  given  country  to 
increase,  without  a  preliminary  international  agreement,  the  time 
devoted  to  studies; 

Resolves:  The  following  matters  are  to  be  included  in  the  agenda 
of  the  next  meeting  of  the  International  Labor  Conference; 

(а)  Harmonizing  of  the  laws  relating  to  the  suppression  and  aboli¬ 
tion  of  child  labor  and  those  relating  to  compulsory  education; 

(б)  Limitation  of  the  hours  of  work  of  young  workers  of  both  sexes 
to  permit  the  development  of  their  general  and  technical  proficiency. 

(Signed)  Max  Lazard  (France). 

Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy). 

De  Eza  (Spain). 

F.  Sokal  (Poland). 


APPE 

MOTION  PRESENTED  BT  MR.  CASTBERG  (NORWAY). 

THE  48-HOUR  WEEK. 

Be  it  resolved  that  the  question  of  prescribing  a  48-hour  week  for 
those  processes  which,  by  their  nature,  are  required  be  carried  on 
continuously  by  a  succession  of  shifts  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda 
of  the  next  conference. 

(Signed)  Johan  Castberg, 

Government  Delegate  (Norway). 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  THE  DELEGATION  OF  PARAGUAY  FOR 
ESTABLISHMENT  OF  A  COMMISSION  ON  MINIMUM  WAGES. 

The  delegates  of  Paraguay  move  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolution: 

Whereas  the  incorporation  into  the  by-laws  of  this  conference  of  the  principle  that 
human  labor  is  not  an  article  of  commerce, implies  the  right  of  the  State  to  enact  the 
proper  laws  to  enforce  that  principle  so  that  human  labor  shall  not  be  subject  to 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  and  in  times  of  unemployment  should  not  be  sub¬ 
jected  to  inadequate  wages  brought  about  by  abundance  of  labor,  therefore  be  it 
Resolved,  That  this  International  Labor  Conference  in  its  first  session  recommends 
to  the  States,  members  thereof,  the  establishment  of  a  special  commission  that  may 
gather  the  necessary  material  to  study  and  report  to  a  future  conference  upon  the 
possibility  of  the  establishing  of  minimum  wages  in  the  different  industries  in 
accordance  with  the  third  principle  of  the  general  declaration  contained  in  article 
427  of  the  treaty  of  Versailles,  and  be  it  further 
Resolved,  That  the  trades  and  processes  with  which  this  recommendation  deals  be 
the  same  as  those  contemplated  by  the  convention  on  hours  of  work. 

(Signed)  M.  Gondra, 

A.  Campos, 

Government  delegates  of  Paraguay. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  THE  SWEDISH  GOVERNMENT  DELE¬ 
GATES  CONCERNING  THE  AGENDA  FOR  THE  NEXT  CONFERENCE. 

ANNUAL  VACATION  FOR  EMPLOYEES. 

The  Swedish  Government  delegates  present  the  following  resolu¬ 
tion: 

• 

Whereas  it  must  be  considered  essential,  for  the  physical  as  well  as  for  the  psychical 
health  of  employees,  that  they  should  enjoy,  each  year,  a  certain  period  of  absolute 
rest:  It  is 

Resolved,  That  the  question  of  providing  regular  annual  vacations  for  employees  be 
ncluded  in  the  agenda  for  the  next  conference. 

(Signed)  A.  E.  M.  Sjoborg, 

R.  G.  H.  von  Koch, 
Government  Delegates  of  Sweden. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  GEMMILL  (SOUTH  AFRICA). 

composition  of  the  governing  body. 

I  move  that  in  view  of  the  fact  that  no  less  than  20  out  of  the  24 
members  of  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office, 
appointed  under  article  393  (7)  of  the  peace  treaty,  are  representa¬ 
tives  of  European  countries,  the  conference  proceed  under  article 
422  (36)  of  the  treaty  to  amend  the  said  article  393  (7)  by  laying 
down  a  maximum  total  representation  of  countries  in  Europe  and 
so  as  to  insure  more  adequate  representation  of  countries  outside  of 
Europe. 

(Signed)  W.  Gemmill, 
Employers'  Delegate  of  South  Africa. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  THE  ARGENTINE  DELEGATION. 

STUDIES  FOR  THE  NEXT  SESSION  OF  THE  LABOR  CONFERENCE. 

The  Argentine  delegation  proposes  that  the  following  matters  be 
material  for  study  and  debate  in  the  next  conference: 

1.  A  legal  system  which  permits  of: 

(а)  Preventing  strikes;  and 

(б)  Arriving  at  settlements  when  prevention  has  not  given 
the  expected  results. 

2.  A  system  which  tends  to  create  industrial  courts  of  justice 
with  exclusive  jurisdiction: 


NDIX  271 

(a)  In  all  judgments  and  questions  relative  to  the  labor  contract; 
and 

(b)  In  the  application  of  the  fines  or  penalties  which  the  laws  of 
each  country  fix  for  the  infraction  of  the  labor  laws. 

These  courts  of  justice  should  act: 

(a)  Gratiously  for  the  workers;  and 

(b)  With  expeditious  and  summary  process. 

3.  A  legal  system  which  protects  the  wage  of  the  worker,  declaring: 

(a)  Exemption  from  attachment. 

(b)  Payment  in  legal  tender. 

(c)  Semimonthly  payment. 

4.  A  legal  system  concerned  with  the  regulation  of  home  work 
without  distinction  as  to  the  sex  of  the  workers,  and  carrying  with 
it  the  fixing  of  a  legal  minimum  wage  by  joint  commissions  of 
workers  and  employers. 

5.  A  system  of  interruption  of  the  working  period  having  regard 
to  the  fact  that  the  weekly  rest  must,  as  far  as  possible: 

(a)  Be  on  Sunday. 

(b)  Be  absolute,  and  include  24  uninterrupted  hours. 

6.  A  legal  system  of  accident  compensation  placing: 

(а)  The  whole  cost  of  the  system  upon  the  employers;  and 

(б)  Occupational  disease  upon  the  same  plane  as  accidents. 

(c)  The  workers  to  have  guaranties  against  the  insolvency  of 
employers. 

7.  A  legal  system  regulating  working  conditions  in  factories, 
workshops,  and  other  places  of  work,  with  a  view: 

(a)  To  protecting  the  safety  of  the  workers  by  preventing  acci¬ 
dents;  and 

(b)  To  protect  their  health,  avoiding  the  dangers  of  industrial 
poisoning  in  accordance  with  the  conclusions  of  industrial  hygiene. 

(Signed)  L.  Anastasi, 

F.  Espil, 

A.  J.  Balino, 

H.  PlNI, 

Delegates  of  Argentina. 

MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  CABALLERO  (SPAIN). 

APPOINTMENT  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  LABOR 
OFFICE  IN  EACH  COUNTRY. 

In  order  that  the  decisions  of  this  and  following  conferences 
may  have  every  possible  effectiveness,  the  peace  treaty  recognizes, 
in  its  labor  clauses,  that  an  inspection  service  should  be  organized 
in  each  state.  But  as  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the  governing 
body  should  have  a  special  representative  in  each  country,  who 
should  be  empowered  to  act  as  the  medium  of  communication 
between  the  International  Labor  Office,  the  Governments,  and  the 
trade-unions,  and  who  should  be  a  person  able  to  offer  every 
guarantee  to  the  labor  cause,  this  labor  delegation  proposes  that 
the  following  question  be  included  in  the  program  of  the  next 
conference: 

“Appointment  and  duties  of  the  representative  or  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  International  Labor  Office  in  each  country.” 

(Signed)  Francisco  Largo  Caballero, 

Spanish  Labor  Delegate. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  VON  KOCH  (SWEDEN.) 

REVISION  OF  THE  LIST  OF  INDUSTRIES  IN  THE  DRAFT'  CONVENTION 
LIMITING  THE  HOURS  OF  WORK. 

The  list  of  industries  enumerated  in  Article  I  of  the  draft  conven¬ 
tion  limiting  the  hours  of  work  should  be  accepted  only  provisionally; 
that  list  should  be  submitted  to  the  next  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference  with  a  view  to  its  ratification,  after  having  been  previously 
examined  by  the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office. 

(Signed)  R.  J.  H.  von  Koch, 

Government  Delegate  of  Sweden. 


272 


APPENDIX 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  CABALLERO  (SPAIN). 

RIGHT  OF  ORGANIZATION  OF  WORKERS  AND  FREEDOM  OF  THE  PRESS. 

In  order  that  articles  1  and  2  of  the  clauses  in  the  peace  treaty, 
having  reference  to  labor,  may  be  placed  on  an  unequivocal  basis, 
the  labor  delegation  of  Spain  proposes  that  the  following  be  included 
in  the  program  of  the  next  International  Labor  Conference  as  a 
subject  of  first  importance: 

“The  labor  policy  to  be  developed  by  the  agency  created  by  the 
peace  treaty  or  by  the  International  Labor  Conference  is  a  policy  not 
merely  of  labor  protection,  but  also  of  labor  liberation.  And  to 
this  end  the  necessity  for  the  participation  of  labor  in  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  production  must  be  recognized.” 

Since  every  policy  is  based  on  a  fundamental  principle,  it  is 
necessary  that  the  conference  should  determine  the  fundamental 
principles  on  which  a  labor  policy  should  be  founded. 

In  the  judgment  of  this  delegation  it  would  be  desirable  to  deter¬ 
mine  at  the  next  conference  the  following  bases: 

1.  The  trade-union  is  the  only  adequate  organ  for  dealing,  through 
freely  elected  representatives,  with  skilled  labor  and  with  every 
question  concerning  labor  in  its  relations  with  employers. 

2.  The  right  of  combination  and  association,  meeting  and  freedom 
of  the  press,  must  be  so  completely  recognized  that  the  authorities 
will  not  be  able,  under  any  circumstances  whatsoever,  legally  to 
deprive  organized  labor  of  these  rights. 

In  case  of  wrongdoing  the  responsibility  for  the  act  shall  fall  upon 
the  individual,  or  upon  the  governing  board  of  the  society  to  which 
the  individual  belongs;  but  in  no  case  whatsoever  shall  the  respon¬ 
sibility  for  wrongdoing  fall  on  the  association  as  a  whole,  thereby 
closing  labor  centers  or  suspending  the  rights  of  meeting  or  the 
freedom  of  the  press. 

3.  The  army  may  not  intervene  in  labor  conflicts,  either  to  control 
them  or  to  furnish  substitutes  for  strikers.  Nor  may  it  adjudge 
through  its  tribunals  those  who  have  violated  social  laws. 

(Signed)  Francisco  Largo  Caballero, 

Labor  Delegate  of  Spain. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  SANJI  MUTO  (JAPAN). 

workers’  pensions,  sick  and  death  benefits,  and  education. 

It  is  proposed  that  the  following  subjects  be  included  in  the 
agenda  of  the  next  conference: 

Universal  legislation  in  the  matters  of  workmen’s  pensions,  provision  of  sick  and 
death  benefits  to  workers  and  their  families,  industrial  and  moral  training. 

(Signed)  Sanji  Muto, 
Employers’  Delegate  of  Japan. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  JIR.  CABALLERO  (SPAIN). 

INCLUSION  OF  AGRICULTURAL  LABOR  ON  THE  AGENDA  OF  THE  NEXT 

CONFERENCE. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  present  conference  has  completely 
set  aside  the  question  of  agricultural  interests,  the  undersigned 
labor  delegate,  in  the  name  of  the  laborers  of  Spain,  requests  that 
the  following  subject  be  included  in  the  program  of  the  next  con¬ 
ference:  “The  question  of  agricultural  labor,”  and  that  the  fol¬ 
lowing  points  be  embraced  in  its  analysis: 

(а)  Employment  of  women  and  children. 

(б)  Enforced  unemployment  and  its  remedies. 

(c)  Bases  of  leasing  contracts. 

( d )  Necessity  of  community  pastures. 

(e)  Compulsory  scientific  cultivation  of  lands. 

(/)  Accidents  and  sickness  among  agricultural  workers. 

(Signed)  Francisco  Largo  Caballero, 

Labor  Delegate  of  Spain. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  ILG  (SWITZERLAND). 

SATURDAY  HALF  HOLIDAY. 

The  undersigned  moves  that  the  following  subject  be  put  on  the 
agenda  of  the  next  conference:  Working  day  of  eight  hours  on  each 
of  the  first  five  days  of  the  week  and  of  less  than  eight  hours  on 
Saturday. 

(Signed)  Conrad  Ilg, 
Workers'  Delegate  of  Switzerland. 


PROPOSAL  OF  MR.  VARELA  (URUGUAY)  CONCERNING  THE  PRO¬ 
GRAM  OF  THE  NEXT  CONFERENCE. 

I  propose  that  there  shall  be  included  in  the  agenda  of  the  next 
International  Labor  Conference  the  problem  of  pensions  to  the  aged 
and  the  incapacitated. 

Attached  herewith  is  the  law  now  in  force  in  the  Republic  of 
Uruguay,  which  same  offers  an  ample  and  liberal  solution  of  this 
important  question  and  which  has  the  support  of  both  people  and 
Government  in  my  country. 

(Signed)  J.  Varela, 
Government  Delegate  of  Uruguay. 


Old-Age  Pensions. 

Law  of  February  11,  1919. 

Article  1. 

Any  person  who  has  reached  60  years  of  age,  or  any  person  of 
whatsoever  age  who  is  wholly  incapacitated  and  who  is  found 
to  be  in  an  indigent  state,  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  from  the 
State  a  minimum  pension  of  $96,  annually,  or  its  equivalent  in 
direct  or  indirect  assistance. 

Article  2. 

• 

Foreigners  or  citizens  by  naturalization  must  have  resided  con¬ 
tinuously  in  the  country  for  at  least  15  years  in  order  to  be  entitled 
to  pensions,  and  this  must  not  exceed  the  minimum  accorded  to  a 
native-born  citizen. 

Article  3. 

For  the  purpose  of  providing  old  age  pensions  to  the  aged  and 
for  carr ying  out  other  provisions  of  this  law  there  shall  be  levied : 

1.  A  tax  for  future  contingencies  of  20  cents  monthly,  to  be  paid  by 
each  employer  or  manager  for  each  workman  or  employee  in  his 
service. 

2.  A  surtax,  which  must  be  paid  by  owners  of  real  estate,  the 
total  value  of  which  is  not  less  than  $200,000,  in  accordance  with 
the  following  scale: 


Capital  value. 

Surtax 

per 

thousand. 

Capital  value. 

Surtax 

per 

thousand. 

$200,000  and  under  $300,000. . . 

$1.05 

$500,000  and  under  $600,000 _ 

$1.20 

$300,000  and  under  $400,000. . . 

1.10 

$600,000  and  under  $700,000 _ 

1.25 

$400,000  and  under  $500,000. . . 

1.15 

$700,000  and  over . 

1.30 

3.  A  tax  on  imported  playing  cards  of  20  cents  per  pack  and  10 
cents  per  pack  on  those  of  domestic  manufacture. 

4.  An  increase  in  import  duty  of  2  cents  per  bottle  or  per  liter  on 
the  following  liquors:  whisky,  absinthe,  bitters,  vermuth,  cognac, 
grappa,  fernet,  gin,  kirsch. 

5.  Fine  wines  shall  pay  a  duty  of  12  cents  per  bottle  or  liter. 
Where  liquors  are  sold  in  bottles  or  vessels  holding  more  than 
a  liter  the  duty  shall  be  levied  proportionally. 

6.  A  tax  of  6  cents  per  liter  upon  alcohol,  whether  domestic  or 
imported. 

7.  An  increase  to  13  cents  of  the  domestic  tax  upon  imported 
beverages. 


APPENDIX 


273 


Article  4. 

The  Pension  Service  shall  arrange  its  distribution  methods  in 
accordance  with  article  2. 

Article  5. 

Calculations  for  the  annual  pension  appropriation  should  be  made 
to  allow  for  a  reserve  fund  to  cover  decreases  in  revenue,  as  well  as 
to  provide  for  the  construction  of  houses  or  other  buildings  for  the 
care  of  indigent,  aged,  or  incapacitated  persons  who  may  be 
willing  to  pay  in  part  for  the  shelter  and  protection  afforded  them. 

Persons  not  entitled  to  pensions  shall  be  assisted  by  the  service 
provided  therefor. 

Article  6. 

If  during  the  first  year  of  the  application  of  this  law  the  taxes  de¬ 
signed  for  the  purpose  do  not  amount  to  a  sum  sufficient  for  the  pay¬ 
ment  in  the  proportion  fixed,  there  shall  be  included  in  the  next 
budget  a  supplementary  contribution  from  the  State  to  make  up 
the  necessary  amount  mentioned  as  the  minimum  in  article  1. 

Article  7. 

In  case  any  person  entitled  to  a  pension  shall  be  in  receipt  of  an 
income  from  other  sources,  the  State  shall  pay  such  pension  in  full, 
if  said  income  does  not  amount  to  more  than  §10  per  annum;  but 
if  such  income  shall  be  of  greater  value  than  §10,  the  State  shall 
decrease  the  pension  by  half. 

Article  8. 

The  tax  for  future  contingencies  created  by  article  3  shall  be  ap¬ 
plied  by  means  of  stamps,  each  one  being  of  the  value  of  one  month's 
payment.  The  administrator  shall  furnish  a  book,  in  which  such 
stamps  may  be  placed,  to  each  contributor,  including  laborers  in 
the  public  service.  The  full  payment  of  the  same  may  be  proved 
by  showing  the  said  book,  which  shall  be  in  the  name  of  the  con¬ 
tributor  and  shall  carry  a  serial  number,  recorded  in  the  general  regis¬ 
try  and  deposited  under  the  supervision  of  the  director  of  taxes. 

The  cost  of  the  book  shall  be  paid  by  the  contributor. 

Article  9. 

The  revenue  produced  by  taxes  created  by  this  law  shall  be  de¬ 
posited  monthly  in  the  insurance  bank  of  the  State,  which  insti¬ 
tution  shall  establish  a  special  fund  from  which  to  effect  the  prompt 
payment  of  pensions.  This  sendee  shall  be  free,  and  the  bank  shall 
make  no  charges  for  reimbursement  beyond  the  actual  cost. 

Article  10. 

Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  as  invalidating  any  act 
which  may  be  made  with  regard  to  accident  insurance  or  public 
pensions. 

Article  11. 

Legacies  and  donations  may  be  accepted  for  the  pension  fund 
above  mentioned. 

Article  12. 

Assessments  for  the  tax  for  future  contingencies  may  be  paid  in 
annual  installments  in  advance.  In  such  cases  there  shall  be  pro¬ 
vided  stamps  of  the  value  of  the  entire  annual  installment. 

Article  13. 

Proofs  of  the  age  and  nationality  of  all  persons  seeking  pensions 
shall  be  provided  by  either  baptismal  certificates  or  birth  certifi¬ 
cates  of  the  civil  registry,  according  to  whether  the  person  in  question 
was  born  before  or  since  1879. 

Foreigners  may  furnish  corresponding  documents  from  their  native 
countries. 

Article  14. 

Proof  of  residence  shall  be  by  information  duly  certified  by  re¬ 
sponsible  persons. 

146865°— 20 - 18 


•Such  declarations  shall  be  made  before  judges  of  primary  courts 
of  claims  in  coast  and  interior  cities  and  before  justices  of  the  peace 
in  Montevideo. 

Article  15. 

The  administration  shall  have  the  right  to  institute  proceedings  for 
the  verification  of  such  proofs. 

If  it  shall  be  proved  by  such  investigations  that  perjury  has  been 
committed,  the  guilty  person  or  persons  shall  be  punished  by  con¬ 
finement  in  prison  for  net  less  than  one  and  not  more  than  two  years. 

Article  16. 

Violations  of  the  provisions  of  this  law  shall  be  punishable  by 
fines  of  from  §10  to  §15. 

Fifty  per  cent  of  these  fines  shall  revert  to  the  inspectors  or  to 
accusers. 

Article  17. 

Ali  sums  for  the  account  of  the  State  shall  be  included  by  the 
interested  department  in  the  budget  of  general  expenses. 

Article  18. 

The  pensions  referred  to  in  this  law  shall  be  effective  three  months 
after  its  promulgation. 

Article  19. 

The  Executive  shall  enforce  the  present  law. 

Article  20. 

Enacting  clause. 


Law  of  September  1,  1919. 


Article  I. 


Articles  13  and  14  of  the  law  of  February  11,  1919,  are  hereby 
repealed. 


Article  II. 


The  proofs  of  age  and  nationality  required  by  this  law  may  be 
established  by  the  presentation  of  birth  certificates  of  the  civil 
registry  of  the  State  in  the  cases  of  persons  born  after  July  1, 
1879,  and  by  baptismal  certificates  in  the  cases  of  those  bom  before 
that  date.  Parochial  certificates  or  certificates  of  the  civil  authority 
shall  be  accepted  as  sufficient  if  bearing  the  seal  of  the  civil  registry. 
The  insurance  bank  of  the  State  may  accept  as  proofs  sufficient  for 
this  law  birth  certificates,  passports,  or  documents  from  foreign  coun¬ 
tries,  even  when  not  legalized,  provided  they  believe  them  authentic 
and  see  no  reason  to  doubt  their  validity.  Also  the  bank  may  dis¬ 
pense  with  complete  information  concerning  the  age  of  the  applicant, 
if  the  report  of  the  physicians  of  the  institution  do  not  establish  in 
categorical  manner  that  the  person  is  of  the  age  required  by  the  law. 

Article  III. 

Proof  of  residence  of  15  years  by  foreigners  may  be  established  by 
information  furnished  by  responsible  witnesses.  These  proofs  are 
mandatory  and  must  be  signed  before  a  justice  of  the  peace  of  the 
domicile  of  the  petitioner  in  the  department  of  the  capital,  and 
before  judges  of  the  court  in  other  departments.  These  declarations 
may  be  made  upon  ordinary  paper  and  without  charge.  The  cer¬ 
tificates  shall  be  executed  upon  printed  forms  furnished  by  the  bank. 
In  case  the  petitioner  is  unable  to  appear  before  the  aforementioned 
justice  or  judge,  or  in  case  the  petitioner  is  unable  to  sign  his  peti¬ 
tion,  another  person  may  execute  it  for  him  before  a  judge  or  justice 
who  shall  go  to  the  house  of  the  petitioner  and  make  certification 
thereto.  This  petition  shall  be  afterwards  forwarded  to  the  proper 
court  to  undergo  the  necessary  legal  procedure.  This  act  may  also 
be  certified  to  by  a  notary  public. 

Article  IV. 

The  insurance  bank  of  the  State  has  the  power  to  suspend  the 
payment  of  pensions  to  such  persons  as  are  proved  to  be  mendi¬ 
cants  or  inebriates. 


274 


APPENDIX 


Article  V. 

Whenever  five  members  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  State 
insurance  bank  consider  that  the  petitioner  is  entitled  to  relief  for 
subsistence  under  the  provisions  of  the  civil  code,  he  may  be  granted 
a  pension  provisionally,  provided  that  in  order  that  the  aforesaid 
provisions  of  the  law  shall  be  effective  and  in  order  that  the  in¬ 
surance  bank  of  the  State  may  be  reimbursed  for  the  sums  so  dis¬ 
bursed  as  pensions,  the  procedure  necessary  to  obtain  the  said  pen¬ 
sions  shall  be  initiated  by  the  person  soliciting  assistance,  who  shall 
for  that  purpose  be  aided  by  the  law  officer  of  the  employment 
bureau.  This  procedure  shall  be  without  charge  to  the  petitioner, 
who  shall  be  entitled  to  file  his  petition  upon  ordinary  paper,  except 
in  cases  in  which  the  judge  may  deem  the  reasons  presented  as  in¬ 
sufficient  to  justify  the  remission  of  costs. 

Article  VI. 

All  aliens  who  arrive  on  or  after  the  date  of  the  promulgation  of 
this  law,  February  12,  1919,  and  who  at  the  time  of  entry  are  incapa¬ 
citated  for  work,  shall  not  be  entitled  to  pensions. 

Article  VII. 

The  insurance  bank  of  the  State  shall  have  all  rights  possessed  by 
the  administrator  under  article  15  of  the  law  of  February  11, 
1919,  to  initiate  proceedings  for  the  vertification  of  proof. 

Article  VIII. 

Enacting  clause. 


LETTER  FROM  MR.  SAASTAMOINEN  (FINLAND). 

USE  OF  WHITE  PHOSPHORUS  IN  THE  MANUFACTURE  OF  MATCHES. 

Washington,  November  i8, 1919. 

Mr.  H.  B.  Butler, 

Secretary  General  International  Labor  Conference. 

Executive  Offices,  Navy  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir:  Referring  to  your  communication  of  the  21st  instant,  X  beg  to  advise  you  that 
Finland  has  never  ratified  the  Bern  convention  of  1906,  regulating  the  use  of  white 
phosphorus  in  the  manufacture  of  matches.  But  inasmuch  as  the  act  of  November 
13,  1872,  which  has  since  been  and  is  still  in  force  in  Finland,  prohibits  the  manu¬ 
facture,  importation,  and  selling  of  matches  containing  white  phosphorus,  it  is  evident 
that  Finland  is  ready  to  abide  by  any  international  convention  regulating  this  matter 
and  is  willing  to  adhere  to  such  convention. 

Please  accept  my  apology  for  being  somewhat  late  in  answering  your  inquiry. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully  yours, 

(Signed)  A.  H.  Saastamoinen, 

Government  Delegate  for  Finland. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  SIR  MALCOLM  DELEVINGNE  (GREAT 

BRITAIN). 

RECOMMENDATIONS  WITH  REGARD  TO  THE  USE  OF  WHITE  PHOS¬ 
PHORUS. 

It  is  proposed  that  this  conference  recommend  to  all  members  of 
the  International  Labor  Organization  which  have  not  yet  done  so 
that  they  should  adhere  to  the  International  Convention,  adopted 
at  Bern  in  1906,  on  the  prohibition  of  the  use  of  white  phosphorus 
in  the  manufacture  of  matches. 

(Signed)  Malcolm  Delevingne. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  MESSRS.  ARMENTEROS  AND  JUSTIZ 

(CUBA). 

RULES  OF  PROCEDURE  FOR  THE  NOMINATION  OF  NONGOVERNMENT 
DELEGATES  TO  THE  CONFERENCE. 

Various  countries  have  experienced  difficulties  in  the  nomination 
of  nongovernment  delegates  to  this  conference  and  in  some  cases 
have  even  been  unable  to  appoint  them,  as  can  be  seen  from  the 
report  of  the  commission  on  credentials,  from  report  No.  2  of  the 


commission  on  standing  orders  [printed  in  the  present  record],  and 
from  the  debates  upon  the  adoption  of  these  reports. 

The  treaty  of  peace,  while  it  states  that  the  nongovernment 
delegates — 

must  be  chosen  in  agreement  with  the  Industrial  organization,  if  such  organizations 
exist,  which  are  most  representative  of  employers  or  workpeople,  as  the  case  may  be, 
in  their  respective  countries — 

does  not  indicate  what  procedure  is  to  be  followed  to  arrive  at  that 
agreement  when  questions  arise,  for  instance,  as  to  what  organiza¬ 
tions  in  a  given  country  are  to  be  consulted,  how  the  votes  are  to  be 
apportioned  among  them,  how  the  voting  is  to  be  carried  out,  and 
does  not  determine  clearly  whether  industrial  organizations  include 
organizations  in  the  field  of  agriculture  and  commerce  as  well  as 
industry. 

It  would  therefore  be  well  to  attempt  to  fix  upon  some  procedure 
by  which  these  questions  might  be  settled  satisfactorily  in  each 
country  and  so  make  it  less  likely  that  nominations,  made  by  Govern¬ 
ments  in  good  faith,  would  be  challenged  before  the  conference  on 
account  of  some  misunderstanding. 

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  conference  request  the  Governing 
Body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  to  study  the  question  of  the 
procedure  to  be  followed  by  the  different  members  in  the  nomina¬ 
tion  of  nongovernment  delegates  to  the  conference,  so  as  to  avoid 
in  the  future,  as  far  as  possible,  such  difficulties  as  have  arisen  in 
connection  with  the  nominations  to  the  first  conference. 

(Signed)  Carlos  Armenteros, 

F.  Carrera  Justiz, 

Delegates  of  Cuba. 


COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  DELEGATE  OF  URUGUAY. 

SUBSISTENCE  FOR  UNEMPLOYED  WORKERS  IN  URUGUAY. 

(Publication  of  the  following  has  been  authorized  and  directed  by 
the  chairman  pro  tempore  of  the  conference.) 

The  President  of  the  International  Labor  Conference: 

Herewith  attached,  I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  you,  as  an 
exhibit,  a  contribution  to  the  study  of  the  unemployment  problem, 
a  copy  of  the  law  referring  to  that  question  which  is  now  in  force 
in  the  Republic  of  Uruguay. 

The  said  legislation,  known  as  the  Brum  Law,  on  the  right  to  live, 
was  presented  to  the  Parliament  by  the  present  president  of  my 
country  with  the  following  explanation,  signed  by  him  as  secretary 
of  state,  which  office  he  held  at  that  time. 

This  bill  recognizes  the  right  of  every  inhabitant  of  the  country  who  may  be  found 
to  be  destitute  of  resources  to  be  fed  by  the  State. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  a  person  could  die  of  hunger  in  a  civilized  nation.  To 
avoid  such  occurrences  it  is  not  enough  that  philanthropic  societies  may  exist  in  the 
land;  because  such  organizations  may  prove  entirely  impotent  during  industrial 
panics,  the  very  times  when  such  destitution  is  caused  and  must  be  relieved. 

The  right  of  every  person  to  live  should  be  recognized,  just  as  is  recognized  the 
right  of  everyone  to  public  assistance  in  case  of  serious  illness. 

If  it  be  admitted  that  the  State  is  obligated  to  furnish  medical  assistance  to  the 
indigent  sick  gratuitously,  it  should  also  be  admitted  logically  that  it  has  the  obli¬ 
gation  to  furnish  food  to  the  healthy  laborer  without  employment,  in  order  to  pre¬ 
vent  his  family  from  dying  of  starvation. 

The  eminent  statesman,  Rodolphe  Broda,  in  the  Review  called  the  Documents  of 
Progress,  says: 

“It  has  often  been  pointed  out  in  this  connection  that  every  system  of  social  bet¬ 
terment  being  evolved  from  a  sentimental  point  of  view,  by  trying  to  diminish 
human  suffering,  preserves  the  existence  of  many  individuals  really  unfit  to  live, 
thereby  preventing  the  survival  of  the  strongest,  and  that  therefore  their  efforts 
are  hostile  to  true  progress.  But  in  my  opinion,  this  objection  is  utterly  worthless. 
The  conservation  of  those  who,  after  having  loyally  discharged  their  tasks  in  the 
struggle  for  life,  are  threatened  by  destruction,  is  an  imperative  social  duty.  And 
the  efforts  by  which  cooperative  aid  may  be  given  that  will  prevent  one  human 
being  from  perishing  constitute  a  great  social  victory  *  * 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  present  economic  crisis,  food  has  been  furnished  to  un¬ 
employed  laborers  without  any  distinction  whatsoever  as  to  age,  nationality,  or  po¬ 
litical  or  religious  partisanship,  and  apart  from  any  effort  to  find  them  work  either 
in  public  or  private  industries. 

Although  certain  sums  of  money  may  be  continually  employed  in  this  relief  work, 
I  believe  it  is  opportune  that  a  law  should  be  sanctioned  whereby  the  State  would 
be  obligated  to  furnish  subsistence  to  those  persons  without  means  to  feed  themselves. 


APPENDIX 


275 


Finally,  more  than  2,010  laborers  have  been  out  of  employment,  through  the  dimin¬ 
ution  of  work  in  the  refrigerating  plants  in  Montevideo  and  other  parts  of  Uruguay. 
These  laborers  are  not  in  any  way  responsible  for  this  lack  of  employment;  but  it 
may  easily  be  imagined  what  such  a  condition  means  to  them  when  we  remember 
that  almost  every  one  of  them  has  a  family  and  home  to  be  supported. 

As  at  the  present  time  these  laborers  find  it  so  difficult  cither  to  find  employment 
or  to  leave  their  country,  they  are  confronted  by  the  following  dilemma:  to  die  of 
hunger  or  to  become  thieves.  In  order  to  avoid  these  disasters,  I  have  proposed 
that  each  unemployed  person  lie  given  two  meals  daily. 

For  many  years  the  problem  of  the  subsistence  of  unemployed  laborers  has  occu¬ 
pied  the  attention  of  statesmen.  In  various  countries  they  have  decided  on  an 
insurance  system,  which  is  undoubtedly  the  best  solution.  But  as  this  requires 
vast  expense,  I  believe  that,  without  in  any  way  prejudicing  the  careful  study  of 
the  insurance  method  of  relief,  the  proposition  expressed  in  the  attached  bill  may 
be  accepted  as  a  means  of  ready  relief. 


May  these  humane  principles  be  extended  throughout  the  world 
in  future  years. 

(Signed)  J.  Varela, 
Government  Delegate  of  Uruguay. 


Extract  from  the  Text  of  the  Brum  Law. 

Article  1.  The  executive  power  shall  furnish,  in  commissaries,  barracks,  or  other 
appropriate  places,  food  to  each  and  every  inhabitant  of  the  country  who,  by  reason 
of  any  circumstances  whatsoever,  is  without  employment,  or  who  lacks  the  means 
of  subsistence. 

Article  2.  The  obligation  referred  to  in  the  preceding  article  shall  cease  when  the 
person  assisted  has  refused  to  accept,  without  just  cause,  any  employment  which 
may  have  been  offered  to  him. 


AMENDMENT  BY  THE  DELEGATES  FROM  CUBA  TO  THE  DRAFT 
CONVENTION  ON  HOURS  OF  WORK. 

The  delegates  from  Cuba  respectfully  submit  the  following  with 
regard  to  the  amendments  proposed  to  the  draft  convention  on  hours 
of  work  by  the  Swedish  Government  delegates: 

The  words  “raw  sugar”  should  be  omitted  from  the  proposed 
amendment  to  article  4. 

The  delegates  from  Cuba,  while  accepting  the  principle  of  the 
48-hour  week,  are  obliged  to  except  the  manufacture  of  raw  sugar 
from  its  application,  for  the  following  reasons: 

Although  the  extraction  of  the  raw  sugar  from  the  cane  is  done 
by  mechanical  and  chemical  means,  it  is  in  no  sense  an  independ- 
entindustry,  as  is  the  refining  of  sugar;  it  is  simply  the  final  stage  in 
the  agricultural  process,  from  which  it  is  absolutely  inseparable. 

The  cutting  and  grinding  of  the  cane  must  go  on  together.  The 
cane  can  not  be  cut  and  left  in  the  fields,  nor  can  it  be  stored,  for  it 
begins  to  lose  sugar  rapidly  24  hours  after  being  cut.  It  must,  there¬ 
fore,  be  subjected  immediately  to  mechanical  processes  to  preserve 
it  and  make  it  fit  for  transportation  to  the  refineries  where  the  raw 
product  is  manufactured  into  commercial  or  white  sugar.  If  it 
were  possible  to  keep  the  cane  after  being  cut  for  any  length  of 
time,  or  to  transport  it  long  distances,  the  process  of  making  raw 
sugar  would  not  be  agricultural  but  essentially  industrial. 

The  product  obtained  from  the  cane  in  Cuba  is  a  raw  material — 
brown  or  crude  sugar — from  which  the  refineries  in  other  countries, 
to  which  the  Cuban  product  is  exported,  make  the  white  sugar  in  its 
various  commercial  forms.  The  brown  or  raw  sugar,  in  order  to  be 
rid  of  its  mechanical  and  chemical  impurities  and  to  be  fit  for  use, 
must  be  subjected  in  the  refinery  to  four  distinct  operations — mix¬ 
ing,  boiling,  filtering,  and  drying — and  must  pass  through  no  less  than 
13  separate  sets  of  machinery  to  undergo  as  many  different  processes 
before  it  is  changed  into  the  granulated  form  or  various  other  forms 
of  white  sugar.  It  is  thus  clear  that  raw  sugar  is  an  agricultural 
product,  which  is  later  manufactured  by  the  refineries  into  the 
sugar  of  commerce. 

The  extraction  of  the  juice  from  the  edne  and  its  conversion  into 
the  raw  product — brown  or  raw  sugar — is  an  operation  not  only 


immediately  associated  with  agriculture  in  point  of  time,  but  is 
also  a  seasonal  occupation,  which  must  be  carried  on  during  the  dry 
season,  generally  December  to  April.  The  rains  begin,  as  a  rule, 
in  May,  and  they  have  the  effect  of  diminishing,  in  a  notable  degree, 
the  sugar  content  of  the  cane  and  of  rendering  it  unfit  for  the 
extraction  of  sugar.  The  rains  also  have  the  effect  of  making  work 
in  fields  impossible,  as  the  heavy  carts  loaded  with  cane  can  not  be 
hauled.  The  process  of  cutting  cane  and  extracting  raw  sugar  from 
it  is  thus  typically  a  seasonal  occupation.  It  is  also  continuous 
in  its  nature.  The  machinery  or  plant  must  be  kept  going  both 
day  and  night  during  the  seven  days  of  the  week,  for  it  would  cause 
great  waste  to  interrupt  the  operation  every  few  days,  and  the  cane 
must  be  ground  before  the  rains  set  in.  There  is  always  more  ripe 
cane  available  on  the  fields  than  can  be  cut  and  ground,  so  that 
even  after  continuous  operation  for  the  five  months  much  cane  is 
necessarily  left  over.  This  is  due  to  the  enormous  quantity  that  is 
planted,  to  the  difficulties  of  transporting  the  cane,  and  to  the 
scarcity  of  labor. 

The  laborers  employed  during  the  harvest  season  in  cutting  the 
cane  and  extracting  the  sugar  from  it  are,  to  an  important  extent,  tran¬ 
sient  immigrant  laborers  who  come  from  the  Spanish  mainland,  the 
Canary  Islands,  the  West  Indies,  and  other  points  solely  to  assist  in 
these  operations,  and  after  the  work  is  over  retire  to  other  countries  in 
search  of  employment.  From  50,000  to  60,000  immigrants  come  in 
this  way  each  year,  but  in  spite  of  this  influx  of  workers,  there  are 
never  enough  laborers  to  cut  the  cane  available  in  any  one  year  and 
attend  to  the  milling  operations,  so  that  production  is  always  less 
than  is  possible.  It  must  be  taken  into  account  that  the  popula¬ 
tion  of  Cuba  is  slightly  above  two  and  a  half  millions  and  that, 
nevertheless,  Cuba  produces  nearly  one-fourth  of  all  the  sugar  supply 
of  the  world,  that  is,  over  4,000,000  tons  (this  year)  out  of  a  total 
world  production  of  sixteen  and  a  half  millions. 

From  the  facts  set  forth,  it  is  clear  that  the  operation  of  making  raw 
sugar  under  Cuban  conditions  comes  under  the  head  of  agricultural 
undertakings  and  must  therefore  be  considered  in  connection  with 
agriculture  when  this  subject  is  taken  up  by  the  conference.  The 
Cuban  Government  would  be  unable  to  apply  a  convention,  drawn 
up  for  industrial  undertakings  exclusively,  to  the  process  of  making 
raw  sugar,  but  the  Government  of  Cuba  is  ready  to  apply  the  conven¬ 
tion  to  all  industries  to  which  it  properly  relates. 

(Signed)  Luis  Rosains, 

For  the  Delegates  from  Cuba. 


MOTION  PRESENTED  BY  A  GROUP  OF  DELEGATES. 

COMPOSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNING  BODY. 

The  undersigned,  delegates  to  the  International  Labor  Conference, 
give  notice  that  the  following  resolution  will  be  submitted  for  ap¬ 
proval  to  the  conference  by  Mr.  Gemmill,  delegate  from  South 
Africa: 

Whereas  not  less  than  20  members  of  the  24  comprising  the  gov¬ 
erning  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  are  representatives 
of  European  countries,  the  International  Labor  Conference  expresses 
its  disapproval  of  the  manner  in  which  said  governing  body  is 
composed. 

(Signed)  U.  Masumoto  (Japan);  S.  R.  Parsons  (Canada); 

Carlos  Armenteros  (Cuba) ;  Felipe  Espil  (Argen¬ 
tina);  L.  J.  Kershaw  (India);  A.  C.  Chaterjee 
(India);  N.  M.  Joshi  (India);  W.  Gemmill  (South 
Africa);  A.  Crawford  (South  Africa);  H.  Waring- 
ton  Smyth  (South  Africa);  V.  A.  Pujazon  (Peru); 
J.  Varela  (Uruguay);  A.  de  Mello  Franco 
(Brazil);  Lingoh  Wang  (China). 


RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED  BY  THE  CONFERENCE 


EXPRESSION  OF  THANKS  TO  AMERICAN  GOVERNMENT. 

The  delegates  of  the  Governments,  the  employers  and  the  workers 
now  assembled  at  Washington,  desire  to  express,  at  the  beginning 
of  their  labors,  their  most  sincere  thanks  to  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  for  having  undertaken  to  convene  this  confer¬ 
ence,  and  to  convey  their  most  fervent  wishes  for  the  speedy  res¬ 
toration  to  health  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 


RESOLUTION  OF  SYMPATHY  WITH  THE  POPULATION  OF  THE 
DEVASTATED  REGIONS. 

The  International  Labor  Conference  views  with  sympathetic 
concern  the  distress  of  the  peoples  of  the  devastated  countries,  con¬ 
sequent  upon  the  destruction  of  homes  and  property  in  the  devas¬ 
tated  areas;  it  records  its  desire  that  the  reconstruction  of  those 
devastated  areas  should  be  expedited,  and  it  affirms  that  the  Govern¬ 
ments  and  organizations  which  may  carry  out  the  convention  limiting 
the  hours  of  work  may  properly  regard  work  of  reconstruction  as 
justifying  special  consideration. 


INVITATION  TO  THE  ORGANIZATIONS  OF  EMPLOYERS  AND 
WORKERS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

The  delegates  of  the  Governments,  the  employers  and  the  workers, 
here  assembled,  request  the  organizing  committee  to  invite  organ¬ 
izations  of  workers  and  employers  of  the  United  States  already 
named  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor.  Mr.  Wilson,  to  send  their  dele¬ 
gates  to  this  conference. 


ADMISSION  OF  GERMANY  AND  AUSTRIA  TO  THE  INTERNATIONAL 
LABOR  ORGANIZATION. 

Whereas  in  the  course  of  the  negotiations  concerning  the  treaty  of 
peace,  the  allied  and  associated  powers  agreed  with  Germany  and 
Austria  to  accept  the  idea  of  their  early  admission  to  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Organization  and  decided  to  leave  the  question  to 
the  Washington  conference  for  its  decision,  with  a  recommendation 
in  favor  of  their  admission  after  the  conclusion  of  the  conference, 
and 

Whereas  at  a  later  date  the  allied  and  associated  powers  referred  the 
question  of  the  immediate  admission  of  Germany  and  Austria  to 
the  labor  conference  at  Washington,  to  the  decision  of  the  confer¬ 
ence  itself; 

Therefore, 

The  International  Labor  Conference,  acting  in  accordance  with 
the  decisions  of  the  allied  and  associated  powers, 

Resolves,  That  in  anticipation  of  their  admission  to  the  League  of 
Nations  and  in  view  of  their  expressed  willingness  to  cooperate  in 
the  work  of  the  labor  organization,  Germany  and  Austria  are  hereby 
admitted  to  membership  in  the  International  Labor  Organization 
with  the  same  rights  and  obligations  possessed  by  the  other  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  labor  organization,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  treaties 
of  peace  signed  at  Versailles  on  the  28th  day  of  June,  1919,  and  at 
St  Germain  on  the  10th  day  of  September,  1919. 


INVITATION  TO  THE  DELEGATES  OF  FINLAND  TO  TAKE  PART 
IN  THE  CONFERENCE. 

The  conference,  without  passing  on  the  question  of  principle, 
welcomes  the  delegates  nominated  by  Finland  to  attend  the  Wash¬ 
ington  n  eeting,  and  invites  these  delegates  to  take  part  in  the 


conference  on  the  same  conditions  as  obtain  in  the  case  of  other 
countries  which  have  not  adhered  to  the  covenant  of  the  League  of 
Nations. 


REFUSAL  TO  ACT  UPON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  LUXEMBURG,  SAN 
DOMINGO,  AND  MEXICO. 

The  conference  having  before  it  no  official  application  for  admis¬ 
sion  to  the  conference  from  the  Governments  of  Luxemburg,  the 
Dominican  Republic,  and  Mexico,  is  of  the  opinion  that  no  recom¬ 
mendation  as  to  their  admission  would  be  competent. 


MAINTENANCE  OF  WAGE  STANDARDS. 

The  conference  hopes  that  in  no  case  shall  the  wages  of  workers  be 
reduced  simply  by  reason  of  the  introduction  of  the  8-hour  day  and 
the  48-hour  week,  in  order  that  the  conditions  which  exist  in  certain 
industries  and  which  the  present  convention  allows  to  continue  may 
not  be  aggravated  by  the  imposition  of  lower  wages  on  the  workers. 


EFFECT  OF  CONVENTION  UPON  EXISTING  STANDARDS  MORE 
ADVANTAGEOUS  THAN  THOSE  PROVIDED. 

The  conference  resolves  that  the  provisions  of  the  convention 
limiting  the  hours  of  work  shall  not  interfere  with  any  better  con¬ 
ditions  already  in  operation,  or  agreed  upon,  for  all  or  part  of  the 
workers  of  any  country. 

Neither  shall  they  interfere  with  any  negotiations  now  pending 
in  which  the  workers  are  asking  for  better  conditions  than  the 
convention  provides. 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF  A  SPECIAL  SECTION  IN  THE  INTER¬ 
NATIONAL  LABOR  OFFICE. 

The  conference  resolves  that,  in  connection  with  the  problem  of 
unemployment,  a  special  section  shall  be  created  in  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Office,  to  be  specially  charged  with  the  consideration 
of  all  questions  concerning  the  migration  of  workers  and  the  con¬ 
dition  of  foreign  wage  earners. 


CREATION  OF  AN  INTERNATIONAL  COMMISSION  TO  REGULATE 
THE  MIGRATION  OF  WORKERS. 

The  conference  resolves  that  the  governing  body  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Office  shall  appoint  an  international  commission,  which, 
while  giving  due  regard  to  the  sovereign  rights  of  each  State,  shail 
consider  and  rep  jrt  what  measures  can  be  adopted  to  regulate  tl:  e 
migration  of  workers  out  of  their  own  States  and  to  protect  the  in¬ 
terests  of  wage  earners  residing  in  States  other  than  their  own,  such 
commission  to  present  its  report  at  the  meeting  of  the  International 
Conference  in  1920. 

The  representation  of  European  countries  on  the  commission  shall 
be  limited  to  one-half  the  total  membership  of  the  commission. 


CREATION  OF  AN  INTERNATIONAL  COMMISSION  TO  RECOMMEND 
METHODS  OF  GATHERING  UNEMPLOYMENT  DATA. 

The  Conference  resolves  that  the  governing  body  of  the  Interna¬ 
tional  Labor  Office  is  invited  to  form  an  international  commission 
empowered  to  formulate  recommendations  upon  the  best  methods 
to  be  adopted  in  each  State  for  collecting  and  publishing  all  infor- 


276 


APPENDIX 


277 


mation  relative  to  the  problem  of  unemployment,  in  such  form  and 
for  such  periods  of  time  as  may  be  internationally  comparable. 

So  far  as  agricultural  unemployment  is  particularly  concerned, 
the  International  Labor  Office  shall  come  to  an  understanding  with 
the  International  Institute  of  Agriculture  at  Rome,  in  order  that  the 
latter  may  regularly  transmit  the  information  collected  by  the 
Institute  relative  to  the  aforesaid  unemployment. 


ADDITIONAL  PROTECTION  FOR  WOMEN  AFTER  CONFINEMENT. 

The  conference  requests  the  nations,  members  of  the  International 
Labor  Organization,  to  study  the  question  of  giving  every  working 
woman  the  right  to  remain  away  from  work  after  the  birth  of  a  child 
for  a  period  longer  than  that  fixed  in  the  draft  convention  and  of 
assuring  to  her  certain  benefits  during  her  absence  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  her  to  remain  with  and  to  nurse  her  child.  The  conference 
suggests  also  that  this  subject  be  placed  upon  the  agenda  for  the 
next  conference. 


INVITATION  TO  THE  INDIAN  GOVERNMENT  TO  STUDY  THE 
PROBLEM  OF  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN. 

The  conference  requests  the  Indian  Government  to  make  a  study 
of  the  question  of  the  employment  of  women  before  and  after  con¬ 
finement,  and  of  maternity  benefits,  before  the  next  conference,  and 
to  report  on  these  matters  to  the  next  conference. 


COMPOSITION  OF  THE  GOVERNING  BODY. 

The  conference  expresses  its  disapproval  of  the  composition  of  the 
governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office,  inasmuch  as  no 
less  than  20  of  the  24  members  of  that  body  are  representatives  of 
European  countries. 


DELEGATION  OF  AUTHORITY  TO  THE  GOVERNING  BODY. 

Inasmuch  as  the  treaty  of  peace  has  not  yet  been  ratified,  the 
International  Labor  Conference  authorizes  the  governing  body  of 
the  International  Labor  Office  to  take  such  measures  as  may  be  neces¬ 
sary  to  render  the  resolutions  of  the  conference  effective.  Therefore, 
when  this  conference  adjourns  to-day  (Nov.  29,  1919),  it  adjourns 
leaving  it  at  the  discretion  of  the  governing  body  to  reconvene  the 
present  meeting  or  to  declare  it  closed,  as  may  be  deemed  advisable. 


CREATION  OF  A  COMMITTEE  UPON  THE  ACTIVITIES  OF  THE 
HEALTH  SECTION. 

The  conference  resolves  that  an  advisory  committee  on  which  the 
governments,  the  employers,  and  the  workers  shall  all  be  repre¬ 
sented  shall  be  appointed  without  delay  to  keep  in  touch  with  the 
work  of  the  health  section  of  the  International  Labor  Organization. 


PREPARATION  OF  THE  AGENDA  OF  THE  1930  CONFERENCE. 

The  conference  resolves  that  the  preparation  of  the  agenda  for  the 
next  meeting  be  left  to  the  governing  body  of  the  International 
Labor  Office,  which  shall  proceed  in  the  same  manner  in  which 
the  organizing  committee  undertook  the  work  for  this  conference, 
and  that,,  in  accordance  with  article  400,  each  of  the  different, 
groups  should  send  their  suggestions  and  resolutions  to  that  govern¬ 
ing  body  for  consideration. 


EXTENSION  OF  THE  CONVENTIONS  TO  STATES  NOT  MEMBERS 
OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  ORGANIZATION. 

The  conference  expresses  the  wish  that  the  provisions  of  the 
draft  conventions  adopted  by  the  conference  may  be  followed  in 
the  legislation  of  all  industrial  countries,  and  to  this  end  it  directs 
the  governing  body  of  the  International  Labor  Office  to  commu¬ 
nicate  the  texts  of  the  draft  conventions  to  all  the  governments  of 
the  States  which  are  not  members  of  the  International  Labor  Organ¬ 
ization  and  to  study  the  possible  methods  for  inducing  those  States 
to  embody  the  provisions  of  these  conventions  in  their  domestic 
legislation. 


GREETING  TO  THE  AMERICAN  PEOPLE  UPON  THANKSGIVING 

DAY. 

The  first  International  Labor  Conference,  on  the  occasion  of 
America’s  Thanksgiving  holiday,  takes  this  opportunity  of  uniting 
with  the  great  people  of  this  land  in  an  expression  of  thanksgiving 
and  praise.  At  the  same  time  the  representatives  of  the  nations  of 
the  world  here  assembled  desire  to  convey  to  the  United  States  a 
message  of  appreciation  and  esteem  from  their  respective  peoples 
and  to  bespeak  for  the  future  a  perpetuation  of  the  cordial  relation¬ 
ships  now  existing  between  them  and  the  great  nation  whose  guests 
they  are  on  this  occasion. 

This  conference  fervently  expresses  the  hope  that  this  and  future 
meetings  may  become  an  added  instrumentality  to  the  advancement 
of  mankind  and  the  permanent  establishment  of  peace  and  good  will 
upon  earth. 


o 


» 


. 


■  n 

. 


z 

•  '  '  MM 

< 

,  ■  ■; 


■  •  * .  ■ 


. 


«  .  ■*  - 


. 

’ 


•'.  -"--  •  »  1  ■>  >u*lM 

_ 


c  -  nwdMrtgH 


. 


INDEX 


ABBOTT,  MISS  GRACE  (of  the  United  Staten). 

Member:  Commission  on  Employment  of  Children,  as  secretary,  247. 

ABDUL  ALI  KHAN  (of  Persia,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  30  (3).  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50:  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov 
13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16), 
114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

ABRAHAM,  EDGAR  (of  India). 

Member:  Committee  of  selection,  as  assistant  secretary,  205. 

- drafting  committee,  92,  221. 

ACLAND,  F.  A.  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment  as  substitute  for  Robertson,  233. 

ADDRESS  OF  WELCOME. 

On  behalf  of  Pan  American  Union,  11. 

On  behalf  of  the  United  States,  11. 

Reply  to  address,  12. 

ADMISSION  TO  INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE.  See  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference. 

AGE  LIMIT  (CHILD  LABOR).  See  Child  Labor,  Minimum  Age. 

AGRICULTURAL  WORK. 

Agenda  of  next  conference  to  include,  motion  Mr.  Largo  Caballero  (Spain),  272. 

Eight-hour  day  for  agricultural  classes,  recommended  for  consideration  by 
organizing  committee  of  next  conference  by  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches 
(Italy),  36. 

International  convention  for  protection  of  agricultural  workers  to  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  conference  of  1920,  motion  by  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (Italy), 
198;  action  taken  by  committee  of  selection,  205. 

Proposal  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  to  committee  of  selection  relative  to  excep¬ 
tion  of  provisions  for  agricultural  and  maritime  labor  from  hours  of  work 
convention;  text  and  action  taken  by  committee  of  selection,  205. 

ALI  ASGHAR  KHAN  (of  Persia,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6), 
40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11) 
86;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov. 
21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23), 
176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

ALVAREZ  DE  BUENAVISTA,  JAVIER  (of  Peru,  adviser  to  workers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  25  (19),  138. 

AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR.  President  Gompers  nominated  rep¬ 
resentative,  28. 

ANASTASI,  DR.  LEONIDAS  (of  Argentina,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92; 
Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov. 
25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27, 
(22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Proposals:  Reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers,  draft  convention 
proposed  jointly  with  Dr.  Espil  (Argentina),  241. 

■ - Unemployment,  joint  proposal  with  Dr.  Espil  (Argentina)  in  matter 

of  unemployment,  240. 

Remarks:  Argentine  workers’  delegate,  supporting  contested  admission  of,  111. 

- Commission  on  employment  of  women,  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  night  work  of  women  prohibited  in  Argentina  by 
law  of  1907,  104. 

- Commission  on  unemployment;  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of 

treatment  of  foreign  workers;  opposing  Swiss  amendment,  155. 

ANDREWS,  DR.  J.  B.  (of  the  United  States). 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  as  secretary,  252. 

ANTHRAX. 

Boulin  (Dr.  Pierre),  of  France.  Anthrax  eradication  possible  only  through 
international  action,  99. 

Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  report  and  appendix  on  anthrax  in 
Great  Britain,  253. 

General  conference  ol  international  labor  organization.  Recommendation 
concerning  the  prevention  of  anthrax,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to, 
180;  text  of  recommendation,  261. 

Great  Britain,  report  on  anthrax  in;  appendix  to  report  of  commission  on 
unhealthy  processes,  253. 

Legge  (Dr.  T.  M.),  of  Great  Britain.  In  favor  of  referring  proposals  of  com¬ 
mission  to  a  drafting  committee,  98. 

Miall  (Dr.  S.)  (of  Great  Britain).  Opposed  to  hasty  legislation,  99. 

Organizing  committees’  recommendation  for  preventive  measures,  255. 

ARAQUISTAIN,  LUIS  (of  Spain,  adviser  to  the  workers’  delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

ARGENTINA. 

Delegates,  Government:  Espil  (Dr.  Felipe),  member  of  commission  ofselection, 
29,  205;  member  committee  on  drafting,  221. 

Delegates,  workers;  Balino  (Americo),  commission  on  credentials,  report  on 
protest  in  regard  to  appointment  of  Mr.  Balino,  presented  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne  (Great  Britain),  109;  text  of  majority  report  by  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne  and  of  minority  report  by  Mr.  Oudegeest  (Netherlands),  207; 
debated  in  opposition  Mr.  Oudegeest  (Netherlands),  110,  112;  Mr.  Jouhaux 
(France),  110;  in  favor  Dr.  Anastasi  (Argentina),  111;  Dr.  Varela  (Uruguay), 
112;  Hr.  Balino,  112. 

Night  work  in,  women,  prohibited  by  law  of  1907,  104. 

President  of  Argentina,  Dr.  Hipolito  Irigoyen,  tribute  to,  by  Dr  J.  Varela 
(Uruguay),  112. 

Trades-unions  in  Argentina  compared,  Dr.  L  Anastasi  (Argentina),  111. 


ARMENTEROS  Y  CARDENAS,  CARLOS  (of  Cuba,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct. 30  (3),  28;  Oct. 31  (4), 30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11), 
85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov. 
25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23), 
176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

Motions:  Nongovernment  delegates  to  International  Labor  Conference,  rules 
of  procedure  for,  274. 

Remarks:  Draft  convention  on  unemployment,  explanation  ofintent  requested, 
144. 

AUSTRALIA.  Delegation,  anticipated  delay  of,  15. 

AUSTRIA. 

Admission  to  International  Labor  Conference:  Council  of  League  of  Nations, 
resolutions  of  Aug.  28,  1919,  15. 

- Sept.  11,  1919,  text  of,  15;  referred  to,  21. 

- - Organizing  committee’s  commentary  on  place  on  agenda  of  conference 

of  question  of  admission  of  Austria,  14. 

- Committee  on  applications  for  admission,  report  on  Finland,  Austria’s 

status  compared  with  that  of  Finland,  remarks.  M.  Baldesi  (Italy),  78;  Mr. 
Fraipont  (Belgium),  86;  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  81. 

— - Organizing  committee’s  draft  resolution,  text  of  21, 276;  debated,  in  favor, 

Mgr.  Nolens  (Netherlands),  21;  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  23;  Mr.  Sala  (Spain), 
24;  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy),  24;  in  opposition,  Mr.  Gudrin  (France), 
21;  motion  to  close  debate  voted  and  carried,  25. 

Admission  to  International  Labor  Organization  and  to  Conference;  organ¬ 
izing  committee’s  report,  part  4,  documents  concerning  the  admission  of 
Austria,  15. 

Delegates,  transportation  of,  motion  by  Messrs.  Jouhaux  (France),  Oudegeest 
(Netherlands),  and  Mertens  (Belgium),  265. 

Delegation  at  Paris,  telegram  of  best  wishes  for  final  success  of  conference,  90. 

BAAS,  G.  (of  Netherlands,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

BAKERIES.  Night  work  prohibited  in  Norway,  104. 

BALDESI,  GINO  (of  Italy,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessionsof  Oct.  29, (1,2)  19;  Oct. 30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10) 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov. 
21(16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20), 
146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187; 
Nov.  29  (  25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

- committee  on  applications  for  admission,  31,  208. 

Motions:  Admission  of  Finland  to  International  Labor  Conference,  amend¬ 
ment  to  motion  of  Mr.  Christie  (Canada),  voted  on,  carried,  89. 

— —  commission  on  employment  of  women  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  amendment  relative  to  shift  system,  introduced, 
103,  269,  rejected,  106. 

- commission  on  hoursof  work  draft  convention,  art.  2,  amended  by  add¬ 
ing  clause  (d),  guarantee  against  reduction  of  wages,  122,  ruled  out  of  order, 
123. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  study  of  relation  of  unemployment  to 

distribution  of  raw  materials  and  cost  of  ocean  carriage,  respectively,  to  be 
referred  to  League  of  Nations,  135,  voted  on,  lost,  143. 

- forty-eight  hour  week  and  8-hour  day,  declared  by  conference  to  be  max¬ 
imum  length  of  working  hours,  and  appointment  of  a  commission  to  study 
details  of  application  of  same,  74;  voted  on,  lost,  76. 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  8-hour  day,  immediate  vote 

to  be  taken  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

— - reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers,  appointment  of  a  commis¬ 

sion  pursuant  to  resolution  of  Supreme  Council  of  Aug.  29, 1919,  amendment 
to  point  16  of  organizing  committee’s  report,  19,  withdrawn  20. 

- Russian  proposal  for  peace  negotiations,  acceptance  of  by  nations 

interested,  265. 

Remarks'  Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  report  ol  majority  on 
admission  of  Finland  into  International  Labor  Organization  and  interpre¬ 
tation  of  art.  387,  Treaty  of  Peace,  78. 

■ — — - resolution  of  minority,  accepting  substitute  resolution  presented 

by  Mr.  Christie  (Canada),  89. 

- commission  on  employment  of  children  draft  convention,  supporting 

amendment  of  British  workers  presented  by  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning  through 
Miss  Bondfield,  raising  minimum  age  of  child  labor  in  India  from  14  to  15 
years,  97. 

- art.  2  (to  prohibit  night  work  of  young  persons  employed  in  in¬ 
dustry),  proposal  to  delete  paragraph  b,  171;  voted  on,  carried,  171. 

-  commission  on  employment  of  women,  report  of  majority  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night;  on  shift  system  and  night  work  for  women,  103 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  article  2,  amended  by 

adding  clause  d,  guarantees  against  reduction  of  wages  with  reduction  in 
hours  of  work;  protest  against  continual  objections  to  workers'  proposals,  122. 

- proposal  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  for  postponement  of  Baldesi, 

amendment  accepted,  125. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  opposed  to  recommendations  of  report 

exempting  Japan  from  application  of  8-hour  day,  164. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of' treat¬ 
ment  of  foreign  workers;  in  favor  of  amendment  of  Baron  di  Palma  Casti¬ 
glione  (Italy),  154. 

- report  of  majority;  relation  between  unemployment  and  ques¬ 
tions  of  raw  materials  and  ocean  carriage,  134. 

-  organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  8-hour  day  and  48-  hour 

week,  opposed  to  adjournment  for  purpose  of  gaining  time  to  consider 
motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

- opposed  to  reference  of  to  a  special  commission  until  conference 

has  voted  on  principle  of  question,  74. 


279 


280 


INDEX. 


BALDESI,  GINO— Continued. 

Remarks:  organizing  committee  recommendations  on  the  8-hour  day  or  48-hour 

week,  53. 

—  - organizing  committee’s  report,  adoption  of,  19,  20. 

—  - organizing  committee’s  report,  amendment  to  point  16,  20. 

- - reciprocity  of  rights,  19. 

Reports:  Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  majority  report  pre¬ 
sented,  78;  text  of,  208. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  minority  report,  237. 

Resolution:  Protection  of  wage  standards  presented  jointly  with  Mr.  Jouhaux 
(Prance)  and  appended  to  final  report  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  pre¬ 
sented,  128;  voted  on  and  carried,  170;  text  of  as  submitted,  267;  as  adopted, 
276. 

BALINO,  AMERICO  (o/  Argentina,  workers’  delegate). 

Appointment  of,  commission  on  credentials’  report  on  protested  appointment 
of  Mr.  Balino  presented  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain),  109; 
text  of  majority  report  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  and  of  minority  report  by 
Mr  Oudegeest '(Netherlands),  207;  debated  in  opposition  by  Mr  Oudegeest, 
110, 112;  Mr.  .louhaux  (France),  110;  in  favor,  Dr.  Anastasi  (Argentina),  111; 
Dr.  Varela  (Uruguay),  112;  Mr.  Balino,  112. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov. 
19  (14),  100;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25 
(19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  15/;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23), 
176:  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

BARBOSA,  JOSE  (of  Portugal,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1,2),  19;  Oct.  30(3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov. 
28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39. 

Remarks:  Committee  on  standing  orders,  objection  to  second  report  of,  108. 

-  Portugal’s  representation  in  conference;  voting  privilege  in  conference 

of  countries  not  having  both  workers’  and  employers’  representatives,  108. 

BARNES,  RIGHT  HON.  G.  N.  to/  Great  Britain,  Government  delegate). 

Letter,  as  president  of  committee  of  labor  commission  of  Supreme  Council,  to 
secretary-general  of  peace  conference  on  admission  of  Austria  and  Ger¬ 
many,  15. 

Presides  at  tenth  session,  67;  thirteenth  session,  91;  twenty-first  session,  147; 
twenty-third  session,  168. 

Unable  to  attend  opening  of  conference,  appoints  Mr.  J.  F.  Price  substitute,  12. 
Vice  president  for  governments  represented,  nominated  by  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches  (Italy),  29;  seconded  by  Prof.  E.  Mahaim  (Belgium),  29. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8), 
56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130; 
Nov.  27  (22),  167:  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
Member:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

—  - commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

■  Motions:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work, 
art.  2;  amendment  providing  for  determination  of  distribution  of  hours  per 
day,  268. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  resolution  that  modifi¬ 
cations  of  main  convention  respecting  application  of  8-hour  day  and  48-hour 
week  to  Japan,  China,  India,  Persia,  Siam,  Roumania,  and  Greece,  are 
justified,  158;  voted  on,  carried,  166. 

—  - organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work;  adoption 

of  as  basis  for  discussion  referring  question  of  its  application  to  tropical 
countries  to  a  special  committee,  35. 

Remarks:  Acknowledgment  of  presence  and  address  of  Vice  President  Marshall, 
62. 

■ - commission  on  employment  of  women,  draft  convention  concerning 

emnloyment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth  art.  4;  explanation  of  his 
ruling  on  amendment  of  M.  Jouhaux  (France),  180. 

—  - commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  reply  to  Mr.  Parsons 

(Canada)  in  opposition  to  reopening  8-hour  day  and  48-h'our  week  contro¬ 
versy,  115. 

- - organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  review  of  pro¬ 
visions  of  convention,  33. 

- accepting  amendment  of  Mr.  Fontaine  (France)  to  his  proposal,  47. 

- protest  against  prolonged  general  discussion  of,  53. 

- report  on  8-hour  day,  interpretation  of  treaty  provisions  concern¬ 
ing  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  36. 

- - commission  on  special  countries,  elucidating  his  report,  158. 

- -  urging  adoption  of  his  motion,  165. 

• - thanks  to  Secretary  of  Navy,  United  States  of  America  (Hon.  Josephus 

Daniels),  for  providing  accommodations  for  conference,  51. 

Reports:  Commission  on  special  countries,  report  presented,  158;  text  of,  233. 
Resolutions:  Reconstruction  in  devastated  areas  of  Europe,  appended  to  final 
report  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  presented,  voted  on,  and  agreed  to 
unanimously,  129;  text  of  as  submitted,  225;  as  adopted,  277. 

BARONI,  E.  (of  Italy,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6 
(8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90; 
Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Quar- 
tieri,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

- committee  of  selection,  205. 

Remarks:  Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee’s  draft 
convention  on  hours  of  work;  opposed  to  alternative  proposal  of  Mr.  Marjori- 
banks  (Great  Britain),  42. 

BARRETT,  JOHN  (of  the  United  States,  Director  General  of  Pan  American  Union). 
Remarks:  Address  of  welcome  on  behalf  of  Pan  American  Union,  11. 

- appreciation  of  hospitality  accepted  by  International  Labor  Conference. 

199. 

BAUER,  MARKO  (of  Serbia,  Croatia,  and  Slovakia,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91; 
Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130: 
Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

BELGIUM 

Delegates,  employers’:  Cartier  (Jules)  elected  vice  president  for  employers’ 
group,  29;  member  of  commission  on  credentials,  206;  member  commission 
on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 


BELGIUM— Continued. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Dallemagne  (Georges),  member  of  commission  on 
unhealthy  processes.  251. 

- Fraipont  (Marcel),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children, 

247;  member  of  commission  on  applications  for  admission,  208. 

- Smet  de  Nayer  (Maurice)  de,  member  of  commission  on  employment  of 

women,  243. 

Delegates,  Government:  Glibert  (Desire),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy 
processes,  251. 

-  Julin  (Armand),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  as  sub¬ 
stitute  for  M.  IMvie,  233. 

- 1.4 vie  (Michel),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  233. 

- - Mahaim  (Ernest),  member  of  committee  of  selection,  29,  205:  member  of 

committee  on  drafting,  221;  member  of  commission  on  standing  orders, 
31,  213;  member  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Mertens  (Corneille),  member  of  committee  of  selec¬ 
tion,  30,  205;  member  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222;  member  oj 
commission  on  employment  of  women,  243;  member  of  commission  on  unem¬ 
ployment,  233;  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  251. 

- Solan  (Guillaume),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  as  sub¬ 
stitute  for  M.  Mertens,  233. 

International  Labor  Office,  representation  of  Belgium  on  governing  body  of, 
13,  14. 

BELLHOUSE,  O.  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Member:  Factory  inspectors’  provisional  committee,  158. 

BENGOECHEA,  DR.  RAMON  (of  Guatemala,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessmns  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30:  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (91,  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov. 
20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19), 
138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

BERLEPSCH,  H.  H.  v.  Referred  to,  200. 

BERN  CONVENTION. 

1906,  Sept.  26  (see  International  Convention  Relating  to  Prohibition  of  Indus¬ 
trial  Night  Work  of  Women). 

1917,  Oct.  4  (see  International  Trades-Union  Conference). 

BERNARDI,  ANTONIO  (of  Paly,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  as  substitute  for  Baron  Mayor  des 
Planches,  229. 

BERNATDWICZ,  EDMUND  (of  Poland,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30:  Nov.  3 1.5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50:  Nov.  6  (8).  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12).  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (141,  100;  Nov. 
20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16).  114;  Nov.  24  (17).  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (20), 
146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157:  Nov.  27  (22),  168:  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  German  and  Austrian  delegates,  explanation  of  vote 
on,  31. 

BHAKDI,  PHYA  CHANINDR  (of  Siam,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2).  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (lO), 
77;  Nov  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15).  107;  Nov, 
24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  28 
(21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25), 
201. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

BIDEGARAY,  MARCEL  (of  Prance,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

BLOMJOUS,  N.  (of  Netherlands,  adviser  to  employers’  delegated). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  25  (19),  138. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  M.  Verkado,  38,  234. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unemployment;  proper  distribution  of  raw  material 
as  a  means  of  preventing  unemployment,  in  support  of  majority  report,  135. 

BOLIVIA.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

BONDFIELD,  MISS  MARGARET  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  19  (14),  100. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Stuart- 
Bunning,  39,  247. 

- Commission  on  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  39. 

Remarks:  Child  labor  in  India,  on  behalf  of  British  workers’  delegato  moving 
amendment  to  add  clause  to  draft  convention  of  commission  on  employment 
of  children,  93. 

BOULIN,  PIERRE  (of  France,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

- - Factory  inspectors’  provisional  committee,  1.58. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  Explanation  of  report,  99. 

BOUVIER,  JEANNE  (of  France,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

BOWERMAN,  RIGHT  HON.  C.  W.  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  21  (16),  114. 

BRAMSNAES,  C.  V.  (of  Denmark,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8), 
56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19 
(14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16).  113;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20), 
146;  Nov.  26  (21).  157;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

BRAZIL. 

Delegates’  credentials  not  having  reached  secretariat,  delegates  prohibited 
from  voting,  145. 

Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries;  report  as  applied  to  Brazil 
debated  by  Dr.  Ferraz  (Brazil),  167,  and  Dr.  de  Oliveira  Sampaio  (Brazil), 
162. 

BROWN,  GERALD  H.  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21,  (16),  113;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146. 

BRUM  LAW.  See  Uruguay,  Unemployment. 

BUENAVISTA,  JAVIER  ALVAREZ  DE.  See  Alvarez  de  Buenavista. 

BUNNING,  G.  H.  STUART-.  See  Stuart-Bunning  (G.  H.). 

BUTLER,  HAROLD  B.  (of  Great  Britain,  secretary  general  of  International  labor 
Conference,  1919). 

Nominated  secretary  general  of  conference  by  M.  Fontaine  (France),  29. 
seconded  by  Dr.  Sulzer  (Switzerland),  29. 

Member:  Committee  of  selection,  as  secretary,  205. 


INDEX. 


281 


CABALLERO,  FRANCISCO  LARGO.  See  Largo  Caballero,  Francisco. 

CALVO,  FEDERICO  (of  Panama,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8), 
56;  Nov.  7  (9).  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14).  100:  Nov. 
21  (16),  114;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28 
(24),  187. 

Remarks:  Eight-hour  (lav  and  48-hour  week;  proposal  that  Latin  American 
delegates  declare  in  favor  of  principle  of,  68. 

CAMBRINI,  LAURA  CASARTELL.  See  Casartelli  Cambrini  (Laura). 

CAMOESAS,  DR.  J.  (of  Portugal,  adviser  to  Government  delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  nnhealthy  processes,  251. 

CAMPOS,  ARTURO  (of  Paraguay.  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov. 
26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

CANADA. 

Delegates,  employers’;  Parsons  (S.  R.),  member  of  commission  on  hours  of 
work,  77,  222. 

- Robertson  (E.  B.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  as  sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  Parsons,  233. 

Delegates,  Government;  Acland  (F.  A.),  member  of  commission  on  unemploy¬ 
ment,  as  substitute  for  Hon.  G.  D.  Robertson,  233. 

- Christie  (L.  C.),  member  of  committee  on  drafting,  221. 

- Riddell  (Dr.  w.  A.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  as 

secretarv,  234. 

- Robertson  (Hon.  G.  D.),  member  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77, 

222. 

- ,  member  of  committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

- ,  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  233. 

-  Rowell  (Hon.  N.  W.),  chairman  of  commission  on  applications  for 

admission.  208. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Draper  (P.  M.),  member  of  commission  on  employment 
of  women,  39,  243:  member  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222;  member 
of  commission  on  unemployment,  233;  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy 
processes,  251-  member  of  commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

Industrial  conditions  in,  remarks  of  Mr.  Parsons  (Canada),  57. 

Industrial  conference  of  September,  1919,  referred  to,  Mr.  Parsons  (Canada),  58. 
International  labor  office,  objection  on  part  of  Canada  to  suggested  governing 
body  of ,  14. 

CANAL  ZONE.  Labor:  Admission  of  Panama  workers  to  Canal  Zone  in  pref¬ 
erence  to  unskilled  workers  of  other  nations  and  on  equal  footing  with  those 
of  United  States,  request  for  consideration  of,  Mr.  Paredes  (Panama),  243. 

CANTACUZENE,  EUGENE  (of  Greece,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6 
(8),  56;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov. 
26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

CARBONIC-OXIDE  GAS.  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes;  report  presented 
by  Dr.  Legge  (Great  Britain),  in  reference  to  carbonic-oxide  gas,  etc.,  98. 
- report  of,  text,  including  resolutions  of  commission  on  preventive  meas¬ 
ures  to  be  taken  in  case  of  carbonic-oxide  gas  poisoning,  253. 

CARDENAS  (CARLOS)  ARMENTEROS  Y.  See  Armenteros  y  Cardenas. 

CARLIER,  JULES  (of  Belgium,  employers’  delegate). 

Presides  at  eighteenth  session,  124;  twenty-first  session,  154;  twenty-second 
session  ,158. 

Vice  president  for  employers’  group  of  conference,  unanimously  chosen,  29. 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8) ,56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  24  (19),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138:  Nov.  26  (20),  140; 
Nov.  20  (21),  158;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187; 
Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  credentials,  27,  206. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- employers’  member  of  governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  131. 

Remarks:  Acknowledgment  of  services  of  presiding  officer,  Mr.  Wilson  (United 
States),  conveyance  of  message  to  President  of  the  United  States,  recogni¬ 
tion  of  interpreters,  on  behalf  of  employers,  200. 

- admission  of  Germany  and  Austria,  opposing  organizing  committee’s 

resolution  on,  26. 

-  commission  on  unemployment  draft  recommendation  No.  3;  unem¬ 
ployment  insurance;  rejection  of  recommendation  called  for,  149. 

- 1  commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth;  conflict  in  votes  on,  187. 

— - League  of  Nations,  employers’  delegates  not  obstructionists, production, 

cost  of  living,  industrial  relations,  alliance  with  Swiss  employers’  delegate 
(Schindler)  on  question  of  48-hour  week,  44. 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  supporting 

employers’delegate  of  Switzerland,  Mr.  Schindler,  44. 

- supporting  employers’  proposal  of  Mr.  Schindler  (Switzerland),  49. 

- in  support  of  statement  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  66. 

CARRERA  JUSTIZ,  CARLOS  (of  Cuba,  Government  delegate). 

Unable  to  attend  tenth  session,  67. 

Attendance:  Sessionsof  Oct. 29(1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6(8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12 
(11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17).  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov. 
29  (25),  201. 

Motions:  Nongovernment  delegates  to  International  Labor  Conference,  rule 
of  procedure  for,  274. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  1,  opposed  to 
having  industrial  standards  applied  to  Cuba,  an  agricultural  country,  121. 

-  protest  against  insufficient  representation  of  Latin  American  countries 

on  governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  131. 

CASARTELLI  CAMBRINI,  LAURA  (of  Italy ,  adviser  to  Government  delegates) . 
Referred  to,  102, 103. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39  ,  243. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women ,  report,  minority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  text  of,  246. 

CASTBERG,  JUDGE  JOHAN  (of  Norway,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessionsof  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct. 30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16), 
114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women, 39,  243. 


CASTBERG,  JUDGE  JOHAN— Continued. 

Motions:  Agenda  for  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920  to  include  ques¬ 
tion  of  48-hour  week  for  continuous  industries,  199,  271. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours-of  work  draft  convention,  art.  4,  amendment 
concerning  shifts  in  continuous  industries  proposed,  125;  amendment  with¬ 
drawn  and  recommended  for  next  conference,  126. 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work  supported  by 

Norwegian  Government  delegates,  with  stated  reservations,  56. 

-  Finland’s  admission  to  International  Labor  Conference,  26. 

- Finland’s  admission  to  International  Labor  Organization,  opposed 

to,  83. 

- forty-eight-hour  week  law  of  Norway,  adopted  July,  1919,  56. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  1  (a),  provisional 

opposition  to  amendment  of  Mr.  Smyth  (Great  Britain)  to  include  inland 
navigation  in  convention,  118. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  concerning 

employment  of -women  before  and  after  childbirth,  art.  5  (establishing  period 
ofsix  weeks  before  confinement  as  legal  time  in  which  pregnant  working 
women  are  entitled  to  receive  maternity  benefits),  in  explanation  of  inquiry 
of  Mr.  Paus  (Norway),  176. 

- amendment  to  minority  amendment  of  art.  5  of  draft  con¬ 
vention,  173. 

- - —  art.  7-8;  in  favor  of  proposal  to  vote  on  articles  without  debate, 

177. 

- —  report,  majority,  on  employment  of  women  at  night,  approved 

with  reservations,  103. 

C A S/l I G L I O N E ,  DR.  G.  DI  PALMA.  See  Palma  Castiglione,  Dr.  G.  di. 

CENSORSHIP  OF  THE  PRESS.  See  Liberty'  of  the  Press. 

CHATTERJEE,  ATUL  CHANDRA  (of  India,  Government  delegate) . 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct. 30  (3), 28;  Oct.  31  (4), 30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77; 
Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25; 
(IS),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146:  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22), 
168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Remarks:  Child  labor  in  India,  opposed  to  British  workers’  (Bondfield)  amend¬ 
ment  to  draft  convention  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  94. 

CHILD  LABOR.  Agenda  for  Washington  conference,  1919,  place  of,  13,  14. 

Commission  on  employment  of  children  appointed,  39;  membership  roll  of 
commission,  247. 

Greece,  Law  of  Jan.  24, 1912,  remarks  by  Mr.  Sofianopoulos  (Greece),  97. 
International  Congress  of  Working  Women;  resolution  of,  referred  to  commis¬ 
sion  on  employment  of  children,  50. 

Minimum  age:  Commission  on  employment  of  children  draft  convention 
fixing  minimum  age  of  admission  of  children  to  industrial  employment, 
record  vote  taken,  agreed  to,  179;  text  as  submitted  to  drafting  committee 
248;  text  as  returned  by  drafting  committee,  262. 

- art.  1,  amendment  of  Mr.  Sofianopoulos  (Greece)  exempting  from  oper¬ 
ation  of  article,  for  three  years,  those  countries  which  have  not  yet  intro¬ 
duced  vocational  training,  by  permitting  therein  employment  of  children 
between  12  and  1 4  years  of  age,  98,  269. 

- report  on  minimum  age  presented  by  Mr.  Delevingne  (Great 

Britain)  92,  debated,  93-98;  closure  of  debate  on,  votes,  98;  report  adopted, 
98;  text  of  report,  247. 

- India,  commission  on  employment  of  children  draft  convention,  art.5, 

amendment  to  convention  by  substituting  an  article  modifying  provisions 
as  applied  to  India  proposed  by  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning  through  Miss  Bond- 
field  (Great  Britain),  text  of,  269;  debated  in  favor  by  Miss  Bondfield  (Great 
Britain),  93;  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  97;  Mr.  Joshi  (India),  95;  Mr.  Smyth  (South 
Africa),  95;  opposed  by  Mr.  Chatterjee  (India),  94;  voted  on,  carried,  98. 

- report  on 'minimum  age;  remarks  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne 

(Great  Britain)  during  presentation  of  report,  93;  remarks  of  Mr.  Smyth 
(South  Africa),  in  defense  of  India  and  in  explanation  of  commission’s  re¬ 
port,  95. 

- Japan;  commission  on  employment  of  children;  remarks  by  Sir  Malcolm 

Delevingne  during  presentation  of  report,  93 . 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention  to  fix  age  of  admission  of  chil¬ 
dren  to  industrial  employment  at  not  less  than  14  years;  text  of,  249. 

Night  work:  Agenda  for  Washington  conference  of  1919,  13,  14. 

— -  commission  on  employment  of  children  draft  convention  to  prohibit 

night  work  of  young  persons  employed  in  industry,  arts.  1-7,  voted  on  as 
amended,  carried,  171;  text  of  as  submitted  to  drafting  committee,  249;  text 
as  returned  by  drafting  committee,  263;  voted  on  as  returned  by  drafting  com¬ 
mittee,  by  record  vote,  182. 

- art.  2  (a),  amendment  by  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden),  269. 

- art.  2  (a),  amendment  in  name  of  Government  delegate  of  Swe¬ 
den,  comment  on  by  Mr.  Delevingne  (Great  Britian),  170. 

- art.  2  (b),  amendment  by  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy)  to  delete  entire  para¬ 
graph  171;  voted  on,  carried,  171. 

- art.  3,  amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  (South  Africa),  adding  gold¬ 
mining  reduction  works  to  exceptions  allowed  in  certain  continuous  indus¬ 
tries  for  persons  between  16  and  18, 170. 

- art.  3  (a),  amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  (South  Africa),  270. 

- Commission  on  employment  of  children,  report  on  employment  of  chil¬ 
dren  during  the  night,  presented  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain), 
170,  text  of  249. 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention,  to  prohibit  night  work  of  young 

persons  employed  in  industry,  art.  5,  tentative  amendment  suggested  by 
Dr.  Oka  (Japan),  251. 

Plumbism:  General  conference  of  International  Labor  Organization,  recom¬ 
mendation  concerning  production  of  children  against  lead  poisoning,  262. 
Switzerland:  Regulated  in  Cantons  of  St.  Gall  and  Zurich  in  1815,  42. 
Unhealthy  processes:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes  as  applied  to  child 
labor,  appointed,  39. 

- organizing  committee,  suggestions  and  recommendations  for  interna¬ 
tional  action,  254. 

Vocational  training  (see  that  title). 

CHINA. 

Delegates,  Government:  Wang  (L.),  member  of  commission  on  special  coun¬ 
tries,  229. 

Delegation  expected,  15. 

Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries;  exemption  of  China  from 
application  of  art.  405  of  treaty  of  peace  recommended,  168. 

- report  on  China,  281. 

CHIRINO,  CARLOS  LOVEIRA  Y.  See  Loveira  y  Chirino 

CHRISTIE,  LORING  C.  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

Member:  Committee  on  drafting,  92. 


282 


INDEX. 


CHRISTIE,  LOR1NG  C— Continued. 

Motions:  Admission  of  Finland  to  International  Labor  Organization,  amend¬ 
ment  to  minority  resolutions,  88. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  Finland  to  International  Labor  Organization,  in  agree¬ 
ment  with  remarks  of  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  88. 

CLOSURE  OF  DEBATE.  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  report  on,  98. 
Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  4,  126. 

Commission  on  special  countries,  166. 

Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treatment 
of  foreign  workers,  155. ' 

Representation  of  Latin  American  countries  on  governing  body  of  international 
labor  office,  132. 

Standing  orders,  art.  14,  president’s  ruling  questioned,  71. 

COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING.  Principle  of  as  one  of  bases  of  labor  policy  of 
international  labor  office  to  be  determined  at  next  conference,  motion  by 
Mr.  Largo  Caballero  (Spain),  272. 

COLLINET,  PAUL  (of  France,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90:  Nov.  17  (13),  92; 

Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  21  (16),  113. 

Member:  Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  31,  208. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

COLOMBIA.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

COMMISSION  ON  APPLICATIONS  FOR  ADMISSION.  Members  named  by 
groups,  31;  voted  on,  31. 

Membership  roll,  208. 

Report  of,  English  text  only  before  conference,  67. 

Report  presented,  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  78;  text  of,  208-213. 

COMMISSION  ON  CREDENTIALS.  Appointment  of,  place  on  agenda  of  con" 
ference,  14. 

Elected,  27. 

Membership  roll,  206. 

Report  presented  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain),  52,  109;  report 
adopted,  53,  113;  text  in  full,  206;  text  of  supplementary  report,  207. 

COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDREN.  Members  appointed,  39* 
Membership  roll,  247. 

Minimum  age  draft  convention,  art.  1  (defining  industrial  undertakings);  amend¬ 
ment  by  Mr.  Sofianopoulos  (Greece),  exempting  from  operation  of  article, 
for  three  years,  those  countries  which  have  not  yet  introduced  vocational 
training  by  permitting  therein  employment  of  children  between  12  and  14 
years  of  age,  98,  269. 

Report:  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain,  presents  report,  92;  report 
debated,  93-98;  closure  of  debate  on,  voted  98;  report  adopted,  98;  text  of 
report,  247. 

Text  of  convention:  Adopted  as  reported,  171;  reported  back  by  drafting  com¬ 
mittee,  178;  record  vote  taken  and  agreed  to,  179;  text  of  convention  as 
reported  by  commission,  24S;  text  as  adopted  by  conference,  262. 

Night  work  draft  convention:  Art.  2  (a)  (industries  in  which  young  persons 
over  16  years  of  age  may  be  employed),  amendment  by  Senator  R.  G.  H.  v. 
Koch,  of  Sweden;  provision  against  possible  suspension  of  convention,  269. 

- art.  2  (6)  (shift  system),  amendment  by  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy,  to 

delete  entire  paragraph,  votea  on  and  carried,  171. 

- art.  3  (exemptions  from  application  of  art  1),  amendment  by  Mr.  H. 

Warington  Smyth,  of  South  Africa.  Adding  gold-mining  reduction  works 
to  exceptions  allowed  in  certain  continuous  industries  for  persons  between 
16  and  18, 170. 

Remarks:  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain,  comment  on  amendment 
of  Swedish  Government  delegate,  170. 

Report:  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain,  presents  report,  170;  text 
of  in  full,  249. 

Text  of  convention:  Convention  as  amended  voted  on  and  carried,  171;  reported 
back  by  drafting  committee,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  182;  text  of  convention 
as  adopted,  249. 

COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN.  Members  appointed,  39. 
Membership  roll,  243. 

Maternity  protection;  draft  convention  concerning  employment  of  women 
before  and  after  childbirth;  art.  1  (definition  of  industrial  undertakings); 
amendment  as  to  inclusion  of  words  “industry,  commerce,  and  agricul¬ 
ture,”  voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost,  189. 

- - amendment  as  to  inclusion  of  words  “  industry  and  commerce,” 

voted  on  by  record  vote,  carried,  189. 

- remarks  by  Mr.  Edstrom  (Sweden)  on  vote  of,  189. 

- remarks  by  Mr.  Gascon  Marin  (Spain)  on  procedure  on  vote  of,  189. 

- arts.  1  and  1(6),  amendment  presented  for  Messrs.  Posada  and  Gascon 

Marin  (Spain)  by  Mr.  Gascon  Marin  to  include  commercial  undertakings, 
174;  debated  adversely  by  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain),  174;  art.  1  voted  on, 
carried,  174;  art.  1(6)  voted  on,  lost,  175;  text  of  1  and  1(6),  269. 

- art.  2  (definition  of  term  “woman”  and  “child”  as  used  in  convention); 

amendment  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  extending  provisions  of  convention 
to  women  of  all  ages  and  nationalities,  175;  debated  adversely  by  Mr.  Craw¬ 
ford  (South  Africa),  175;  voted  on,  carried,  175;  amendment  to  extend  protec¬ 
tion  provided  in  article  to  commercial  undertakings;  debated  in  favor  by 
Dr.  di  Palma  Oastlglione  (Italy),  175;  adversely  by  Mr.  Edstrom  (Sweden), 

175. 

- art.  3  (convention  not  to  apply  to  industrial  undertakings  in  which 

members  of  same  family  only  are  employed);  deletion  moved  by  Messrs. 
Posada  and  Gascon  Marin  (Spain),  175;  voted  on,  lost,  175;  text  of,  269. 

- art.  3(c),  amendment  as  to  deletion  of  words  “or  by  means  of  a  system 

of  insurance,  voted  on,  by  record  vote,  lost,  190. 

- art.  4  (women  not  to  be  employed  in  industrial  establishments  for  six 

weeks  following  confinement);  amendment  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  placing 
liability  for  maternity  benefits  with  government,  175  ,  269;  voted  on,  carried, 

176. 

. - remarks  of  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain)  as  to  ruling  of  chair  on 

amendment  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  180;  explanation  by  Mr.  Barnes 
(Great  Britain)  of  his  ruling,  180;  objection  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  to  explanation, 
180. 

- art.  5  (establishing  period  of  six  weeks  before  confinement  as  legal  time 

in  which  pregnant  working  women  are  entitled  to  receive  maternity  benefits); 
amended  in  minority  report,  which  see. 

- art.  6  (prohibiting  dismissal  of  working  women  for  causes  arising  out  of 

pregnancy);  voted  on,  carried,  176. 

- art.  7  (method  of  paying  benefits  named  in  arts.  4  and  5);  remarks  by 

Mr.  Howell  (Canada),  176;  amendment  by  Messrs.  Posada  and  Gascon 
Marin  (Spain)  inserting  the  word  “compulsory”  before  insurance,  voted  on, 
lost,  177;  amendment  by  Messrs.  Posada  and  Gascon  Marin  (Spain)  making 
benefits  determinable  by  number  of  children,  voted  on,  lost,  177;  text  of,  269. 

- arts.  7-8,  proposal  to  vote  on  articles  without  debate;  remarks  by  Miss 

MacArthur  (Great  Britain)  and  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  177;  voted  on, 
carried,  177. 

- art.  8  (time  oil  for  nursing  mothers),  amendment  to  delete  article  by  Miss 

MacArthur  (Great  Britain),  voted  on,  lost,  178;  art.  8,  agreed  to,  178. 


COMMISSION  ON  EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN— Continued. 

Motions  (1-i):  Proposed  by  the  commission,  concerning  employment  of  women 
before  and  after  childbirth,  text,  245;  voted  on.  carried,  178. 

Report:  Majority  report  presented  by  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain),  171;  text  of 
report,  244. 

Minority  report,  agreeing  with  majority  with  exception  only  of  art.  5,  proposing 
to  shorten  period  named  from  six  to  four  weeks,  presented  by  Mr.  Edstrom 
(Sweden),  172;  debated  favorably  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain), 
174;  Mr.  Paus  (Norway),  176;  Miss  Hesselgren  (Sweden),  173;  adversely  by 
Miss  MacArthur  (Great  Britain),  172;  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy), 
174;  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  173,  176:  text  of  report,  245. 

Drafting  committee’s  text  to  serve  as  text  for  vote  proposed  by  Mr.  Hudson, 
legal  adviser,  186;  discussed  by  Mr.  earlier  (Belgium),  186;  and  Mr.  Rowell 
(Canada),  186. 

Text  of  convention: 

Arts.  1-s  voted  on,  as  amended,  by  record  vote,  agreed  to,  191;  text  of 
arts.  1-8,  244. 

Night  work:  Report,  majority,  on  employment  of  women  at  night,  presented 
by  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain),  102;  text  of.  245;  adopted  unanimously,  107. 
Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  shift  system  for  women,  8- 
hour  shifts,  8  a.  m.  to  10  p.  m.,  with  half  hour  rest,  103;  text  of  proposal,  269; 
rejected,  106.  Amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Gudrin  (France)  for  employ¬ 
ers’  group  of  conference;  debated  by  employers’  delegates,  Mr.  Edstrom 
(Sweden),  105;  Mr.  Fraipont  (Belgium),  104;  Mr.  Gudrin  (France),  104:  by 
government  delegates  Dr.  Anastasi  (Argentina),  104;  Judge  Castberg  (Nor¬ 
way),  103;  Miss  Hesselgren  (Sweden),  105;  Mr.  Kamada  (Japan),  106;  Mrs. 
Kjelsberg  (Norway),  10-1;  Mme.  Letellier  (France),  105;  Mr.  Gonzales  Posada 
(Spain),  105;  by  workers’  delegates  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  103;  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzer* 
land),  106. 

- report,  minority,  on  employment  of  women  at  night  presented  by  Mme. 

Casartelli  Cambrini  (Italy),  text  of,  246. 

COMMISSION  ON  HOURS  OF  WORK.  Membership  roll,  77,  222. 

Draft  convention: 

General  remarks:  Baldesi  (G.),  of  Italy:  Regulation  of  wages  is  affiliated  with 
question  of  reduction  of  hours,  122.  ‘ 

- Barnes  (Hon.  G.  N.),  of  Great  Britain:  Reply  to  Mr.  Parsons  (Canada), 

opposed  to  reopening  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  controversy,  115. 

- Fontaine  (A.),  of  France:  Definition  of  agricultural  and  industrial  pur¬ 
suits  in  case  of  lumber  and  logging  industries  to  be  determined  by  each 
country,  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  122. 

- -  fishing  industry  is  included  in  article  to  be  referred  to  a  special 

commission,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  122. 

- - —  Jouhaux  (L.),  of  France:  Vote  for  convention  urged;  place  of  convention 

in  international  labor  legislation,  122. 

- Parsons  (S.  R.),  of  Canada:  Statement  on  behalf  of  Canadian  employers 

in  opposition  to  reduction  of  hours  of  labor,  114. 

- Paus  ( G.) ,  of  Norway:  Reason  for  voting  against  the  convention,  128. 

- Rowell  (Hon.  N.  W.),  of  Canada:  As  toinclusion  of  fishing,  lumber,  and 

logging  industry  in  convention,  122. 

Arts.  1-11.  Amendment  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  (I,.),  of  France:  remarks  submitting 
workers’  delegates’  amendment  to  arts.  1-6,  8-9,  11,  and  supplementary  arts. 
1-2,  59-61;  by  Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great  Britain,  same,  63.  Workers’  delegates’ 
amendments  to  arts.  1-6,  8-9,  11  of  convention,  text  of,  266. 

Arts.  1-12.  Amendments  by  employers’  delegates,  text  of,  265. 

Art.  1  (definition  of  industrial  undertaking).  Motions:  Senator  R.  G.  H.  v. 
Koch,  of  Sweden,  revision,  by  next  conference,  of  list  of  industries  enumer¬ 
ated  in  article,  271.  Remarks:  Mr.  L.  Marino  Justiz,  of  Cuba,  opposed  to 
article  as  adversely  affecting  Cuban  raw  sugar  labor,  121 . 

Art.  1  (c)  (exceptions  to  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  provision).  Remarks: 
Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada,  objection  to  use  of  word  “navigation”  in 
place  of  “waterways,”  119;  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France,  explanation  of  Mr. 
Rowell’s  objection,  119. 

Art.  1  (d)  (transport  workers).  Amendments:  Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada, 
to  strike  out  words  “sea  or  inland  waterways”  from  first  part  of  clause,  119; 
withdrawn,  120:  Mr.  H.  Warington  Smyth,  of  South  Afri  a,  to  include 
inland  navigation  in  reference  to  special  commission  to  study  question  of 
application  of  8-hour  principle  to  navigation  at  sea,  116;  voted  on  and  agreed 
to,  119.  Remarks:  Judge  J.  Castberg,  of  Norway,  opposed  to  consideration 
by  conference  of  subjects  affecting  marit  ime  labor  as  not  having  been  included 
in  the  agenda  of  the  conference,  118;  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France,  opposed  to 
amendment  of  Mr.  Warington  Smyth  (South  Africa),  116;  opposed  to  amend¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  119;  Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France,  opposed  to 
amendment  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  119;  Senator  R.  H.  G.  v.  Koch,  of 
Sweden,  supporting  amendment  of  Mr.  Warington  Smyth  (South  Africa), 
116;  Mgr.  W.  II.  Nolens,  of  the  Netherlands,  in  favor  of  enforcing  convention, 
119, 120;  Dr.  M.  Oka,  qf  Japan,  in  favor  of  reference  of  question  of  water  trans¬ 
port  to  a  spe  ial  commission  and  to  study  of  both  inland  and  sea  transport 
distinctively,  119;  Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada,  replying  to  objections  to 
his  amendment,  120;  Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen,  of  Finland,  supporting  amend¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Warington  Smyth  (South  Africa),  116. 

Art.  2  (prescribing  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  as  maximum  hours  of 
work).  Amendments:  Mr.  A.  Crawford,  of  South  Africa,  deleting  words 
“other  than  undertakings  in  which  only  members  of  the  family  are  em¬ 
ployed,”  120;  voted  on,  lost,  121;  text  of  267.  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy,  guaran¬ 
tee  against  reduction  of  wages,  122;  ruled  out  of  order,  123.  lion.  G.  N. 
Barnes,  of  Great  Britain,  determination  of  distribution  of  hours  per  day,  268. 
Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  of  the  Netherlands  and  E.  Mahaim,  of  Belgium,  amend¬ 
ing  article  by  submitting  new  text  for  all  clauses,  267.  Mr.  G.  D.  Robertson, 
of  Canada,  exception  to  8-hour  day  provision  in  case  of  observance  of  Satur¬ 
day  half-holiday,  268.  Remarks:  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France,  opposed  to 
amendment  of  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  120.  Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France, 
urging  consideration  of  amendment  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  125. 

Art.  2  (a)  (excepting  from  provisions  of  convention  persons  employed  in  a 
supervisory  or  confidential  capacity).  Amendment:  Mr.C.  Ilg., of  Switzerland, 
changing  words  “supervisory  and  confidential  capacity”  to  “managerial 
responsibility,”  not  seconded,  125.  Remarks:  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France, 
explanation  of  wording  of  clause,  125. 

Art.  2  ( b )  (providing  adjustment  in  cases  where  the  hours  per  day  may  be  less 
than  8).  Amendment:  Mr.  A.  Crawford,  of  South  Africa,  addition  of  words 
“limiting  the  week  to  48  hours,”  122;  not  seconded.  Remarks:  Mr.  A. 
Crawford,  of  South  Africa,  in  support  of  his  amendment,  122. 

Art.  3  (exceptions  to  art.  2  in  emergency  cases);  adopted,  125. 

Art.  4  (exceptions  to  art.  2  in  case  of  continuous  industries);  adopted,  127. 
Amendments:  Judge  J.  Castberg,  of  Norway,  provision  for  shifts  in  con¬ 
tinuous  industries,  125;  amendment  withdrawn  and  recommended  for  con¬ 
ference  of  1920,  125.  Mr.  L.  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes,  of  Cuba,  to  omit  words 
“raw  sugar”  from  proposed  amendment  of  Swedish  delegates,  275.  Closure: 
Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France,  Closure  criticized,  126.  Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great 
Britain,  motion  for  closure  made  and  seconded,  126;  voted  on  and  carried. 
126.  Remarks:  Dr.  J.  Cueva  Garcia,  of  Ecuador,  on  attitude  of  delegates  of 
Ecuador,  127.  Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great  Britain,  defense  of  work  of  commission 
on  article  as  embodied  in  its  report,  126. 


INDEX 


283 


COMMISSION  ON  HOURS  OF  WORK— Continued. 

Draft  convention— Continued. 

Art.  4  (2)  (compensatory  time  provision).  Mr.  C.  Ilg,  of  Switzerland,  altering 
phraseology,  126;  voted  on,  lost,  127. 

Arts.  4-6.  Amendment:  Senator  R.  G.  H.  v.  Koch  and  Dr.  G.  Huss,  of  Sweden, 
adding  certain  industries  to  those  enumerated  in  schedule  A  and  reducing 
hours  mentioned  in  schedule  B  of  draft  convention,  267. 

Art.  5  (provision  for  cases  where  art.  2  can  not  be  applied);  adopted,  127. 

Art.  6  (regulations  to  be  made  by  local  authorities  covering  permanent  and  tem¬ 
porary  exceptions  to  art.  2);  adopted,  127.  Amendment:  Mr.  G.  Pans,  of 
Norway,  to  omit  words  “in  each  instance,”  127.  Remarks:  Mr.  A.  Fontaine, 
of  France,  on  provision  concerning  seasonal  work,  127.  Mr.  G.  Paus,  of 
Norway,  on  his  amendment,  127.  Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada,  on  pro¬ 
vision  covering  seasonal  work,  127. 

Art.  7  (provision  for  sending  certain  material  to  International  Labor  Bureau); 
adopted,  127. 

Art.  8  (provision  for  facilitating  enforcement  of  convention);  adopted,  127. 

Art.  9  (provision  for  modifications  in  case  of  tropical  or  industrially  under¬ 
developed  countries).  Amendment:  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France,  to  delete 
entire  article,  in  view  of  commission  on  special  countries  having  submitted 
a  separate  report  in  form  of  a  convention;  carried,  128.  Dr.  C.  C.  Oliveira 
Sampaio,  of  Brazil,  to  include  maritime  transport  workers,  162;  ruled  out 
of  order,  169.  Remarks:  Mr.  Sanji  Muto,  of  Japan,  statement  objecting  to 
exclusion  from  amendment  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  of  words  “imperfect 
development  of  industrial  organization,”  68. 

Art.  10  (provision  for  suspension  of  convention).  Amendment:  Mr.  C.  Ilg,  of 
Switzerland,  to  delete  words  “in  event  of  war,”  128;  voted  on,  lost,  128. 
Remarks:  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France,  opposed  to  amendment  of  Mr.  Ilg 
(Switzerland),  128.  Dr.  J.  Varela,  of  Uruguay,  in  favor  of  amendment  of 
amendment  of  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  128. 

Art.  11  (time  of  enforcement  of  convention);  adopted,  12S. 

Report:  Presented  by  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France,  114;  text  of  report  in  full,  222. 

Resolutions:  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  of  Great  Britain,  reconstruction  in  devasted 
regions,  appended  to  final  report  of  commission,  voted  on  and  agreed  to 
unanimously,  129;  text  of  as  submitted,  225;  as  adopted,  277. 

- Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great  Britain:  Guarantee  of  minimum  advantages  to 

workers  of  all  countries,  appended  in  form  of  resolution  to  final  report  of 
commission  on  hours  of  work,  presented,  voted  on,  and  agreed  to  unani¬ 
mously,  129. 

- Revised  text,  embodying  amendments  made,  based  on  draft  of  organiz¬ 
ing  committee,  presented,  114;  voted  on  for  submission  to  drafting  com¬ 
mittee,  128;  returned  by  drafting  committee,  178;  voted  on  by  record  vote 
and  agreed  to,  186;  text  in  full,  as  adopted,  256. 

COMMISSION  ON  SPECIAL  COUNTRIES. 

Brazil:  Report  as  applied  to  Brazil  debated  by  Dr.  Ferraz  (Brazil),  167;  Dr. 
de  Oliveira  Sampaio  (Brazil),  162. 

Greece:  Supplementary  report  recommending  delay  in  application  of  conven¬ 
tion  to  Greece  and  Roumania,  233. 

India:  Motion  amending  report  as  applied  to  India,  Mr.  Joshi  (India),  267. 

- Remarks  by  Mr.  Joshi  (India)  regarding  motion  for  adoption  of  report 

in  so  far  as  latter  applies  to  India,  168. 

Japan:  Draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  modifications  of,  dealing  with 
Japan,  voted  on,  carried,  167;  text  of  modifications,  230. 

- Report  as  applied  to  Japan  debated  adversely  by  Mr.  Mortens  (Belgium), 

162;  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  163;  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  164;  Mr.  Masumoto 
(Japan),  159;  Mr.  Oudegeest  (Netherlands),  162;  debated  favorably  by  Mr. 
Kamada  (Japan),  159;  Dr.  Oka  (Japan),  164;  motions  on  by  Messrs. 
Oudegeest  (Netherlands),  Jouhaux  (France),  and  Mertens  (Belgium),  163, 
268;  voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost,  166;  text  of  report,  230. 

Members,  67;  membership  roll,  229. 

Motions:  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  resolution  that  modifications  of  main 
convention  respecting  application  of  8-hour  day  and  4S-hour  week  to  Japan, 
China,  India,  Persia,  Siam,  Roumania,  and  Greece  is  justified,  158;  voted 
on,  carried,  166. 

— - Mr.  Parsons  (Canada),  that  art.  405,  sec.  3,  treaty  of  peace,  be  referred 

to  a  special  committee,  38;  withdrawn,  48. 

Report  presented  by  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  158;  debated  by  Mr.  Barnes, 
165;  closure  of  debate  voted  on,  carried,  166;  motion  of  Mr.  Kershaw  (India), 
to  refer  same  to  conference  as  a  whole,  voted  on,  carried,  169;  text  in  full,  229. 

Minority  report  by  Mr.  Shichiro  Muto  (Japan),  233;  supplementary  report  by 
Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  233. 

Roumania.  (See  Greece,  above.) 

West  Indian  and  Latin  American  delegates  requested  to  name  representa 
tives  on,  91. 

COMMISSION  ON  STANDING  ORDERS.  Membership  roll,  213. 

Report  presented  by  Mr.  Mahaim  (Belgium),  107;  text  of,  213. 

COMMISSION  ON  UNEMPLOYMENT.  Appointment  of,  debated  by  Mr. 
Fontaine  (France),  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spam),  31;  voted  on,  agreed  to  unan¬ 
imously,  31.  Members  appointed,  38;  membership  roll,  233. 

Draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treatment  of  native  and  foreign  workers; 
draft  presented  by  Mr.  Lazard  (France),  134;  voted  on,  183;  text  of,  237. 
Amendment,  part  1  (to  admit  foreign  workers  to  benefits  of  laws  of  member 
States  by  special  agreements).  Presented  by  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione 
(Italy),  143;  debated  favorably  by  Mr.  Lazard  (France),  154;  Mr.  Baldesi 
(Italy),  154;  adversely  by  Mgr.  Nolens  (Netherlands),  155;  motion  for  closure 
of  debate  by  Mr.  Schindler  (Switzerland),  lost,  155;  motion  for  closure  by 
Mr.  Draper  (Canada),  carried,  155.  Amendment,  part  2  (to  transform 
recommendation  into  a  convention  for  examination  by  conference  in  1920). 
Presented  by  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (Italy),  143;  proposal  by  Sir  Mal¬ 
colm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain)  for  reference  of  amendment  to  committee 
of  selection  of  governing  body,  157;  accepted  by  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione 
(Italy),  157. 

Remarks:  Mr.  E.  B.  Robertson  (Canada),  suggesting  amendment  clarifying 
phraseology  so  as  to  exclude  compulsory  recognition  of  trades-unions,  139. 

- Mr.  Schindler  (Switzerland),  on  difficulty  of  enforcing  reciprocity  due 

to  lack  of  uniformity  in  State  insurance  laws,  142. 

Draft  convention  on  unemployment:  Arts.  1-3;  Appendix  A  to  report  of  com¬ 
mission;  voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to,  186;  text  of,  237. 

- art.  1,  quarterly  reports  on  unemployment  to  be  sent  to  international 

labor  office,  text  of,  237;  voted  on,  carried,  145. 

- art.  2,  establishment  of  free  public  employment  agencies;  text  of,  237; 

debated  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  144;  Mr.  Lazard  (France),  144;  voted  on, 
carried,  145. 

-  arts.  2-3,  provisions  inapplicable  to  Brazil;  covered  by  Brazilian  law 

and  constitution,  Dr.  de  Mello  Franco  (Brazil),  145. 

- Explanation  of  intent  of  con vention  concerning  agricultural  occupations 

and  statistics  and  employment  agencies,  Mr.  Armenteros  y  Cardenas  (Cuba), 
144;  reply  Mr.  Lazard  (France),  144. 

- - Proposal  by  Dr.  Riifenacht  (Switzerland),  to  postpone  discussion  on  con¬ 
vention  and  to  refer  subject  to  governing  body,  136;  debated  adversely  by  Dr. 
Anastasi  (Argentina),  155:  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (Italy),  153;  favorably 
by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  154,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost,  156. 


COMMISSION  ON  UNEMPLOYMENT-Continued. 

Draft  recommendations,  Nos.  1-4,  Appendix  A,  to  report  of  commission,  text 
of,  237. 

-  No.  1  (employment  agencies),  vote  on  as  reported  by  commission, 

carried,  146;  vote  ruled  invalid,  148;  motion  to  reconsider  passed,  voted  on, 
and  carried,  149;  voted  on  as  reported  by  drafting  committee,  record  vote 
taken,  carried,  184;  text  of  recommendation,  237. 

- No.  2  (recruiting  of  foreign  workers),  inquiry  regarding  understanding 

as  to  consultation  procedure,  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  146;  reply,  Mr.  Lazard 
(France),  146.  Explanation  as  to  intent  requested,  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada), 
146;  reply,  Mr.  Lazard  (France),  146.  Voted  on  as  reported  by  commission, 
carried,  146;  vote  ruled  invalid,  148;  motion  to  reconsider  passed,  149;  voted 
on,  carried,  149;  voted  on  as  reported  by  drafting  committee,  record  vote, 
184;  text  of  recommendation,  237. 

- - No.  3  (unemployment  insurance),  debated,  Mr.  Mersens  (Belgium),  urging 

unanimous  vote  for  recommendation,  149;  Mr.  Carlier  (Belgium),  opposed 
to  recommendation,  149;  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  opposed  to  procedure 
of  presenting  recommendation,  149;  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  urging  acceptance 
of  recommendation,  149;  Mr.  Posada  (Spain),  compulsory  unemployment 
insurance  supported,  150;  Mgr.  Nolens  (Netherlands),  urging  unanimous 
vote  for  recommendation,  150;  recommendation  voted  on  as  reported  by 
commission,  carried,  150;  voted  on  as  reported  by  drafting  committee, 
carried,  185;  text  of  recommendation,  237. 

— - No.  4  (coordination  of  execution  of  public  works  to  balance  periods  of  un¬ 

employment),  voted  on  asreportedbycommission,  carried,  150;  voted  on  as 
reported  by  drafting  committee,  carried,  185;  text  of  recommendation,  237. 

Draft  resolutions,  Nos.  1-4,  Appendix  A,  to  report  of  commission,  text  of,  237. 

Draft  resolution  No.  1  (methods  of  collecting  and  publishing  information), 
voted  on,  carried,  150. 

- No.  2  (unemployment  insurance),  debated,  Mr.  Lazard  (France),  150;  Sir 

Malcolm  Delevinge  (Great  Britain),  150;  Mr.  Kershaw  (India),  150;  post¬ 
ponement  ofconsideration  of,  voted  on,  carried,  151;  draft  resolution  voted  on, 
carried,  150;  text  of,  237. 

— —  No.  3  (migration  of  workers),  passage  of,  voted  on,  carried,  text  of,  237. 

— - —  No.  4,  amended  by  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa)  soas  to  regulate  European 
representation  on  proposed  international  commission,  137,  268;  voted  on, 
carried,  153. 

- No.  4  (reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers),  debated  adversely  by 

Dr.  de  Mello  Franco  (Brazil),  152;  debated  favorably  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France) 
153;  voted  on,  carried,  153;  Gemmill  amendment  debated  favorably  by  Mr. 
E.  B.  Robertson  (Canada),  139;  by  Dr.  Gondra  (Paraguay),  151;  by  Mr. 
Crawford  (South  Africa),  152;  voted  on,  carried,  153;  passage  of  draft  resolu¬ 
tion  with  Gemmill  addition,  voted  on;  carried,  153;  text  of,  237. 

Report,  majority;  presentation  remarks,  Mr.  Lazard  (France),  132;  text  of 
report  in  full,  234;  report  debated,  Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (Canada),  139; 
Mr.  Sokal  (Poland),  136;  Mr.  Gu6rin  (France),  141;  omission  of  Mr.  Sexton’s 
proposal  for  abolition  of  private  ownership  in  land,  as  cure  for  unemploy¬ 
ment  from  report  referred  to  by  Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (Canada),  139; 
motion  to  refer  conclusions  of  report  to  international  labor  office  for  alloca¬ 
tion  to  proper  departments;  Messrs.  Gudren  (France)  and  Schindler  (Switzer¬ 
land),  141;  voted  on,  lost,  143. 

Report,  minority;  text  of,  237;  debated,  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  relation  of  dis¬ 
tribution  of  raw  materials  and  cost  of  ocean  freight  rates.  134;  in  opposition 
to  Mr.  Baldesi’s  argument,  Mr.  Blomjous  (Netherlands),  135;  motion,  Mr. 
Baldesi  (Italy),  to  refer  study  ofrelation  of  to  League  of  Nations,  135;  voted 
on,  lost,  143. 

Scope  of  study  of  commission  to  include  social,  legal,  and  economic  phases; 
commission  to  be  enlarged  from  9  to  15;  remarks,  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spain), 
31;  Viscount  de  Eza’s  remarks  objected  to  by  Mr.  Sokal  (Poland),  31;  with¬ 
drawn,  32. 

COMMISSION  ON  UNHEALTHY  PROCESSES.  Members  appointed,  39; 
membership  roll,  251. 

Report  presented,  Dr.  Legge  (Great  Britain),  98;  ruling  on  procedure  for  dis¬ 
position  of  report  questioned,  Mr.  Kershaw  (India),  99,  101;  referred  to  draft¬ 
ing  committee,  first  vote,  invalid,  101;  second  vote,  carried,  101;  text  of 
report,  252. 

COMMITTEE  ON  DRAFTING. 

Members  named,  92;  Dr.  Espil  (Argentina)  added,  100;  membership  roll,  221. 

Report  presented;  remarks,  Mr.  Hudson,  legal  adviser,  in  presenting  report, 
178;  text  of  report,  221. 

COMMITTEE  ON  ORGANIZATION.  See  Organizing  Committee. 

COMMITTEE  ON  EMPLOYMENT  AT  SEA;  suggested  by  French  Government, 
14. 

COMMITTEE  ON  ENFORCEMENT  OF  EIGHT-HOUR  DAY;  suggested  by 
French  Government,  14. 

COMMITTEE  OF  SELECTION.  Appointment  of,  14. 

Chairman’s  name  incorrectly  stated  in  mimeographed  list,  31. 

Committee  on  applicat  ions  for  admission  proposed,  31. 

Committee  on  standing  orders  proposed,  31. 

Employers’  group’s  nominees,  29,  30. 

Government  delegates’  nominees,  29. 

Members,  distinction  in  selection  of,  discussion,  29. 

Membership  roll,  205. 

Report  on  proposals  submitted  to  governing  body  of  International  Labor  Con¬ 
ference,  205. 

Workers’  group’s  nominees,  30. 

COMPENSATORY  TIME.  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  4 
(2),  conditional  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  126;  voted 
on,  lost,  127. 

COMPULSORY  EDUCATION.  India;  remarks  by  Mr.  Chattergee  (India),  94; 
by  Mr.  Joshi  (India),  96. 

COMPULSORY  LABOR.  Ecuadoran  delegates,  Mr.  Elizalde  and  Mr.  Cueva 
Garcia,  statement  recommending  adoption  of  legislation  in  order  to  estab¬ 
lish  universal  compulsory  labor,  270;  action  taken  on  statement  by  com¬ 
mittee  of  selection,  205. 

CONTESTED  ADMISSION  TO  CONFERENCE. 

Austria  (see  Austria). 

Dominican  Republic  (see  Dominican  Republic). 

Finland  (see  Finland). 

Germany  (see  Germany). 

Luxemburg  (see  Luxemburg). 

Mexico  (see  Mexico). 

CONTESTED  NOMINATION  OF  DELEGATES. 

Argentine  workers’  delegate  (see  Argentina,  delegates,  workers’). 

Cuban  employers’  delegate  (see  Cuba,  delegates,  employers’). 

French  workers’  delegate  (see  France,  delegates,  workers’). 

Guatemalan  workers’  delegate  (see  Guatemala,  delegates,  workers’). 

Japanese  workers’  delegate  (see  Japan,  delegates,  workers’). 

South  Afiican  workers’  delegate  (see  South  Africa,  delegates,  workers’). 


284 


INDEX. 


CONTINUOUS  INDUSTRIES.  Forty-eight-hour  week,  motion  to  include  ques¬ 
tion  in  agenda  for  nett  conference  by  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  271. 
Norway’s  law  of  1910,  remarks  on  provisions  of,  by  Judge  Castberg  (Norway), 
5fi,  125. 

Organising  committee’s  report  on,  228. 

Shift  system  in  (see  Shift  system). 

Sweden’s  law  of  1920,  remarks  on  provision  of,  by  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden), 
55. 

CONVENTIONS  Adopted  by  International  Labor  Conference.  See  Inter¬ 
national  Labor  Conference. 

COST  OF  LIVING.  Relation  to  war  debt  and  production;  remarks,  Mr.  Carlier 
(Belgium),  44. 

COUNCIL  OF  THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS.  Finland,  reference  to  letter  re¬ 
garding,  21. 

Luxemburg,  reference  to  letter  regarding,  21. 

Power  of,  in  interpretation  of  treaty  of  peace ,  remarks  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  82. 
Resolutions:  Admission  of  Austrian  workers’  delegates  to  conference  (Aug. 
28, 1919),  15. 

- - admission  of  Norway,  Finland,  and  the  Netherlands  to  the  conference 

(Oct.  2, 1919),  16. 

- rights  and  privileges  of  allied  workers  in  enemy  territory,  14. 

- admission  of  German  and  Austrian  delegates  to  conference,  September 

11,  1919,  text,  15;  referred  to,  21. 

CRAWFORD,  ARCHIBALD  (of  South  Africa ,  workers’  delegate ). 

-  Appointment  of  protested;  report  of  commission  on  credentials,  206. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9), 
67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85:  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov. 
19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18), 
130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (201,  147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176:  Nov.  28  (24),  188:  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  to  examine  tropical  countries  with  special  reference  to 
hours  of  work,  229. 

Motions:  Agenda  of  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920,  with  exception 
of  three  items ,  be  left  to  governing  body,  seconded  by  Dr.  Gondra  ( Paraguay), 
198;  voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost  through  absence  of  quorum,  199. 

- - commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  2,  amendment 

deleting  the  words  “other  than  undertakings  in  which  only  members  of  the 
family  are  employed,”  120. 

—  - consideration  of  motion  of  Mr.  Fontadne  (France),  relative  to  authority 

of  governing  body  of  international  labor  office  pending  ratification  of  treaty 
of  peace,  postponed,  193;  voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost,  194. 

- International  Labor  Conference,  power  of,  in  respect  to  admission  of 

nations  not  members  of  League  of  Nations,  revised  draft,  90,  265. 

-  organising  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  amending 

motion  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada)  to  substitute  words  “proceeds  to  discuss” 
in  place  of  “declares,”  75. 

- amending  motion  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  76. 

- standing  orders,  amendment  of,  265. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  concerning 
employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  art.  2,  amendment  of 
Mr.  .Touhaux  (France),  opposed,  175. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  2  (6),  addition  of 

words  limiting  the  week  to  48  hours,  122. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  draft  recommendation  No.  3  (unem¬ 
ployment  insurance),  opposed  to  procedure  of  presenting  recommendation, 
149. 

- draft  resolution  No.  4  (reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign 

workers),  in  favor  of  Gemmill  (South  Africa),  amendment;  allusion  to 
tendency  of  European  countries  to  retain  balance  of  economic  power  over 
newer  countries,  152. 

- eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week;  organizing  committee’s  draft  con¬ 
vention,  declaring  motion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  for  closure  of  debate 
to  be  out  of  order,  71. 

- on  his  amendment  to  motion  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  76. 

- amending  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  75 

- governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  certain  authority  of  pend- 

ingratificationof  treaty  of  peace, proposal  to  postpone  consideration  of  motion 
by  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  193. 

- - - in  support  of  Gemmill  motion  of  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa) 

for  immediate  action  on  his  motion  expressing  disapproval  of  composition 
of  body,  196. 

—  - objection  against  method  of  electing  members  of,  132. 

- home  work,  regulation  of,  120. 

- protest  in  regard  to  time-table  bulletin,  168. 

CREDENTIALS,  COMMISSION  ON.  See  Commission  on  Credentials. 

CREDENTIALS  OF  DELEGATES  AND  ADVISERS,  report  of  organizing 
committee,  14. 

CUBA.  Application  of  industrial  time  standards  to  Cuba,  an  agricultural  country; 
debated  adversely  by  Mr.  Carrera  Justiz  (Cuba),  121. 

Delegates:  Hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  4,  amendment  by  Cuban 
delegates  to  omit  “raw  sugar”  from  proposed  amendments  to  article',  Rosainz 
y  de  los  Reyes  (Cuba),  275. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes  (Luis),  member  of  commission 
on  special  countries,  229. 

• - Report  of  commission  on  credentials  on  protest  of  employers  against 

Government  interference  in  selection  of  delegate,  208. 

Delegates,  Government:  Armenteros  y  Cardenas  (Carlos),  member  of  com¬ 
mission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 

Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries  report  on  Cuba,  232. 

CUKVA  GARCIA,  DR.  DON  JUAN  (of  Ecuador,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2)  19:  Oct.  30,  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  5(7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov. 
(12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24 
(17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26 
(21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Motions:  Finland,  admission  of,  to  International  Labor  Organization,  in  favor 
of  closure,  89. 

- admission  of  Finland,  adoption  of  the  first  part  of  the  minority  resolu¬ 
tion,  stricken  out  upon  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  89;  motion  ruled  out 
of  order  and  withdrawn,  90. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  nations  to  International  Labor  Conference,  procedure 
of,  89. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  Art.  4  (continuous 

industries),  attitude  of  delegates  of  Ecuador,  127. 

- - daily  communique  to  the  press,  in  favor  of  withdrawal  of  proposal  of 

Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy),  that  secretary  issue,  52. 

- - eight-hour  day  and  48-hou'r  week;  organizing  committee’s  draft  con¬ 
vention;  opposed  to  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy)  to  put  motion  ol  Mr. 
Barnes  (Great  Britain)  to  immediate  vote,  37. 


CUEVA  GARCIA,  DR.  DON  JUAN— Continued. 

Remarks:  Finland,  admission  of,  closure  of  debate  on,  89. 

-  Governing  body  of  International  Labor  Office,  protest  against  in¬ 
sufficient  representation  of  Latin  American  countries  on,  131. 

- organizing  committee’s  report,  amendment  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  to 

point  16  of,  20. 

- report  of  Spanish  translation  of,  16. 

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.  Eight-hour  day  law,  remarks  on  provisions  of  by  Mr. 
Tayerle  (Czecho-Slovakia),  55. 

Delegates,  employers’;  Hodacz  (F.)  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30, 
205;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

- Kriz  (A.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

Delegates,  Government:  Sousek  (J.),  member  on  commission  on  employment 
of  children,  247. 

-  Spinka  (Charles),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  251. 

- member  of  commission  of  selection,  29. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Stivinova-Majerova  (Mrs.  M.),  member  of  commission 
on  employment  of  women,  243. 

- Tayerle  (R.),  member  of  commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

DAHLGAARD,  BERTHEL  (of  Denmark ,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  2S  (23),  176. 

DALLEMAGNE,  GEORGES  (of  Belgium,  adviser  to  the  employers’  delegate). 
Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

DANGEROUS  TRADES. 

Match  industry  (sec  White  phosphorus). 

Plumbism  (see  that  title). 

DANIELS,  HON.  JOSEPHUS  (Secretary  of  the  Navy,  U.  S.  -4.).  See  Secretary 
of  the  Navy. 

DELEGATES,  NOMINATION  OF.  Letter  from  legal  adviser  Hudson,  inter 
preting  paragraph  3,  art.  389,  of  treaty  of  peace,  207. 

DELEVINGNE,  SIR  MALCOLM  (of  Great  Britain,  Government  delegate ). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1.2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;Nov.  3 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9).  67;  Nov.  10 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member :  Commission  on  credentials,  27,  206. 

- commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  chairman,  39,  247. 

- committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

- organizing  committee  as  British  representative,  13. 

Molions:  Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee  draft  con¬ 
vention,  in  favor  of  closing  debat  e  on,  66. 

-  International  Convention  of  Bern  of  1906,  on  prohibition  of  use  of  white 

phosphorus  in  match  industry,  resolution  that  conference  recommend 
adherence  to,  171,  274;  voted  on,  carried,  171. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  children  report  on  employment  of 
children  at  night  of,  commented  on,  170. 

- Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of 

treatment  of  foreign  workers; '  amendment  of  Dr.  di  Palma  Castigiione 
(Italy),  part  2;  proposal  to  be  referred  to  committee  ol  selection  of  governing 
body,  157. 

— - draft  resolution,  No.  2,  urging  postponement  of  vote  on 

resolution,  150. 

- committee  on  credentials  has  held  no  meeting,  30;  on  presentation  of 

report  of,  52;  report  of,  on  objections  to  the  appointment  of  labor  delegates 
from  Guatemala  and  Argentina.  109. 

- -  organizing  committee’s  draft  convention,  remarks  and  motion  in  favor 

of  closing  of  discussion  on  S-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  66,  67;  approving 
amendment  of  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa)  to  motion  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Can¬ 
ada),  75;  for  termination  of  discussion  on,  70. 

- Finland,  admission  of,  to  International  Labor  Organization,  position 

of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada)  sustained,  83. 

Reports:  Commission  on  credentials  presented,  109;  adopted,  113;  text  in  full, 
206. 

-  commission  on  employment  of  children,  on  employment  of  children 

during  the  night,  presented",  170;  text  of,  249;  same, 

- report  on  minimum  age,  presented,  92;  adopted,  98;  text  of,  247. 

DELMER,  ALEXANDRE  (of  Belgium,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

DENMARK.  Delegates,  employers:  Vestesen  (H.),  member  of  commission  on 
unemployment,  234. 

Delegates,  Government:  Bramsnaes  (C.  V.),  member  of  commission  on  unem¬ 
ployment,  234. 

- -  Neumann  (S.),  member  of  commission  of  selection,  29,  205. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Hedebol  (P.),  member  of  commission  on  employment  Ol 
children,  247. 

-  Madsen  (C.  F.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

DEVASTATED  REGIONS  OF  EUROPE.  Barnes  (Hon.  G.  N.),  of  Great  Brit¬ 
ain:  Resolution  appealing  for  consideration  of  reconstruction  in  devastated 
areas  of  Europe,  appended  to  final  report  of  commission  on  hours  of  work, 
presented,  voted  on,  and  agreed  to  unanimously,  129;  text  of  as  submitted, 
225;  as  adopted,  277. 

DOMAE,  MAGOSABURO  (of  Japan,  adviser  to  workers’ delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Masumoto,  234. 

DOMINICAN  REPUBLIC.  Admission  to  International  Labor  Conference,  mi¬ 
nority  report  of  committee  on  applications  for  admission  presented  by  Mr. 
Rowell  (Canada),  78;  text  of  report,  212. 

DOMINICI  DR.  DON  SANTOS  A.  (of  Venezuela,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1 , 2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  4  (6), 
40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12  (11  >.  85;  Nov.  13  (12), 
91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  124; 
Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov. 
28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

DRAFTING  COMMITTEE.  See  Committee  on  Drafting. 

DRAPER,  P.  M.  (of  Canada,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1, 2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30:  Nov.  3  (5),  33; 
Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov  10  (10),  77; 
Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  21 
(16),  113;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176: 
Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Gompers  (United 

States),  38, 233. 


(5), 

(10) 


INDEX. 


285 


DRAPER,  P.  M.— Continued. 

Member:  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

- governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  pending  appointment  of 

United  States  representative,  131. 

Motions:  Committee  on  standing  orders,  adoption  of  second  part  of  report  of, 
109. 

• — —  commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treat¬ 
ment  of  foreign  workers,  closure  of  debate,  155. 

— - —  organizing  committee’s  report,  adoption  of,  20. 

Remarks:  Child  labor,  closure  of  debate  on,  98. 

- committee’s  failure  to  report,  adjournment  in  order,  91. 

- eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee’s  draft  conven¬ 
tion,  president’s  ruling  on  closure  of  debate  questioned,  71. 

■ - inquiry  as  to  binding  force  of  vote  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes 

(Great  Britain),  36. 

- League  of  Nations’  authority  over  International  Labor  Conference,  90. 

- motion  of  Mr.  Marino  Perez  on  procedure  under  art.  389,  treaty  of  peace, 

109. 

- recognition  of  trades-unions  in  Canada;  statements  of  Mr.  Robertson 

(Canada)  assailed;  Canadian  industrial  peace  dependent  on  admission  of 
right  of  collective  bargaining  to  trades-unions,  142. 

DROCHA  (of  Portugal). 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38. 

DUMOULIN,  G.  (of  France,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  113. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

DUTASTA,  S.  (secretary  general  of  peace  conference). 

Admission  of  Austria  and  Germany  to  International  Labor  Organization  and 
Conference,  correspondence,  15. 

ECUADOR.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

Liberty  of  press  of,  remarks  of  Dr.  Cueva  Garcia  (Ecuador),  52. 

Delegates:  Motion  recommending  adoption  of  legislation  in  order  to  establish 
universal  compulsory  labor,  270. 

- proposal  relating  to  compulsory  labor,  text  and  action  taken  by  commit¬ 
tee  of  selection,  205. 

Delegates,  Government:  Elizalde  (Rafael  H.),  member  of  commission  on  em¬ 
ployment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Delegate,  workers’:  Explanation  of  failure  to  appoint  delegate,  109. 

EDSTROM,  J.  SIGFRID  (of  Sweden,  adviser  to  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth.  Art.  1,  amendment,  procedure 
on  vote  of,  189. 

- art.  2,  opposed  to  application  of  article  to  commercial  workers,  175. 

- report,  majority,  on  employment  of  women  at  night,  in  support 

of  report  of  majority,  105. 

- report,  minority,  amending  art.  5  of  draft  convention  concerning 

employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  172. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth, 
minority  report,  presented,  172;  text  of  report,  245. 

EIGHT-HOUR  DAY.  Agricultural  classes,  S-hour  day  recommended  by  Baron 
Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy),  36. 

Commerce  and  agriculture,  remarks  by  Mr.  Tayerle  (Czecho-Slovakia)  on 
application  of  8-hour  day  to,  54. 

Committee  on  enforcement  of  suggested  by  France,  14. 

Czecho-Slovakia's  law,  remarks  on  provisions  of  by  Mr.  Tayerle  (Czecho¬ 
slovakia),  54. 

Sweden's  law,  remarks  on  provisions  of  by  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden),  55. 

EIGHT-HOUR  DAY  AND  44-HOUR  WEEK.  International  Congress  of  Work¬ 
ing  Women:  Resolution  in  favor  of  presented,  33. 

Proposal  to  place  question  on  agenda  for  next  conference  moved  by  Mr.  Ilg 
(Switzerland);  ruled  out  of  order,  123. 

EIGHT-HOUR  DAY  AND  FORTY-EIGHT  HOUR  WEEK.  Commission  on 
hours  of  work:  Baldesi  (G.),  of  Italy:  Regulation  of  wages  is  affiliated  with 
question  of  reduction  of  hours,  122. 

- Barnes  (Hon.  G.  N.),  of  Great  Britain:  Reply  to  Mr.  Parsons  (Canada), 

opposed  to  reopening  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  controversy,  115. 

- Fontaine  (A.),  of  France:  Definition  of  agricultural  and  industrial  pur¬ 
suits  in  case  of  lumber  and  logging  industries  to  be  determined  by  each 
country,  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  122;  fishing  industry  is  included  in 
article  to  be  referred  to  a  special  commission,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada), 
122. 

- Jouhaux  (L.),  of  France:  Vote  for  convention  urged;  place  of  convention 

in  international  labor  legislation,  122. 

- Parsons  (S.  R.),  of  Canada:  Statement  on  behalf  of  Canadian  employers 

in  opposition  to  reduction  of  hours  of  labor,  114. 

- Taus  (G.),  of  Norway:  Reason  for  voting  against  the  convention,  128. 

- Rowell  (Hon.  N.  W.),  of  Canada:  As  to  inclusion  of  fishing,  lumber,  and 

logging  industry  in  convention,  122. 

Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention.  Arts.  1-11.  Amendments  by 
Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  Remarks  submitting  workers’  delegates’  amend¬ 
ments  to  arts.  1-6,  8-9,  11,  and  supplementary  arts.  1-2,  59-61;  by  Mr.  T. 
Shaw,  of  Great  Britain:  same,  63;  by  workers’  delegates:  text  of  amend¬ 
ments  of  to  arts.  1-6, 8-9, 11,  of  convention,  266. 

— - arts.  1-12.  Amendment:  Employers’  delegates.  Text  of  amendments 

of,  265. 

- art.  1.  (Defintion  of  industrial  undertaking.)  Motions:  Senator  R.  G. 

H.  v.  Koch,  of  Sweden:  Revision,  by  next  conference,  of  list  of  industries 
enumerated  in  article,  271. 

- Remarks:  Mr.  L.  Marino  Justiz,  of  Cuba:  Opposed  to  article  as 

adversely  affecting  Cuban  raw-sugar  labor,  121. 

- art.  1  ( c ).  (Exceptions  to  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  provision.) 

Remarks:  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  Explanation  of  Mr.  Rowell’s  objection, 
119. 

- Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada:  Objection  to  use  of  word  “navi¬ 
gation”  in  place  of  “waterways,”  119. 

- art.  1  ( d ).  (Transport  workers.)  Amendments:  Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of 

Canada:  To  strike  out  words  “sea  or  inland  waterways”  from  first  part  of 
clause,  119;  withdrawn,  120. 

- H.  Warington  Smyth,  of  South  Africa:  To  include  inland 

navigation  in  reference  to  special  commission  to  study  question  of  application 
of  8-hour  principle  to  navigation  at  sea,  116;  voted  on  and  agreed  to,  119. 
- Remarks:  Judge  J.  Castberg,  of  Norway:  Opposed  to  considera¬ 
tion  by  conference  of  subjects  affecting  maritime  labor  as  not  having  been 
included  in  the  agenda  for  the  conference,  118. 

• - A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  Opposed  to  amendment  of  Mr. 

Warington  Smyth  (South  Africa),  116;  opposed  to  amendment  of  Mr.  Rowell 
(Canada),  119. 


EIGHT-HOUR  DAY  AND  FORTY-EIGHT  HOUR  WEEK.  Commission  on 
hours  of  work  draft  convention.  Remarks:  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  Opposed 
to  amendment  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  119. 

- Senator  R.  G.  H.  v.  Koch,  of  Sweden:  Supporting  amend¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Warington  Smyth  (South  Africa),  116. 

• - Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  of  Netherlands:  In  favor  of  enforcing 

convention,  119, 120. 

- - - Dr.  M.  Oka,  of  Japan:  In  favor  of  reference  of  queston  of 

water  transport  to  a  special  commission  and  to  study  of  both  inland  and  sea 
transport  distinctively,  119. 

- Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell:  Replying  to  objections  to  his  amend¬ 
ment,  120. 

■  - A.  H.  Saastamoinen,  of  Finland:  Supporting  amendment 

of  Mr.  Warington  Smyth  (South  Africa),  116. 

- art.  2  (prescribing  the  8-hour  day  and  the  48-hour  week  as  maximum 

hours  of  work).  Amendments:  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Guarantee  against 
reduction  of  wages,  122;  ruled  out  of  order,  123. 

- G.  N.  Barnes,  of  Great  Britain:  Determination  of  distri¬ 
bution  of  hours  per  day,  268. 

- A.  Crawford,  of  South  Africa:  Deleting  words  “other  than 

undertakings  in  which  only  members  of  the  family  are  employed,”  120; 
voted  on,  lost,  121;  text  of,  267. 

- Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  of  The  Netherlands,  and  E.  Mahaim, 

of  Belgium:  Amending  article  by  submitting  new  text  for  all  clauses,  267. 
G.  D.  Robertson,  of  Canada:  Exception  to  8-hour  day  provision  in  case  of 
observance  of  Saturday  half-holiday,  268. 

- Remarks:  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  Opposed  to  amendment  of  Mr. 

Crawford  (South  Africa),  120.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  Urging  consideration 
of  amendment  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  125. 

- art.  2  (a).  (Excepting  from  provisions  of  convention  persons  employed 

in  a  supervisory  or  confidential  capacity.)  Amendment:  C.  Ilg,  of  Switzer¬ 
land:  Changing  words  “supervisory  and  confidential  capacity”  to  “mana¬ 
gerial  responsibility”;  not  seconded,  125. 

■  - Remarks:  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  Explanation  of  wording  of 

clause,  125. 

- - art.  2  (b)  (providing  adjustment  in  cases  where  the  hours  per  day  may 

be  less  than  8).  Amendment:  A.  Crawford,  of  South  Africa:  Addition  of 
words  “limiting  the  week  to  48  hours,”  122;  not  seconded.  Remarks:  A. 
Crawford,  of  South  Africa:  In  support  of  his  amendment,  122. 

- art.  3  (exceptions  to  art.  2  in  emergency  cases):  adopted,  125. 

- art.  4  (exceptions  to  art.  2  in  case  of  continuous  industries);  adopted,  127. 

Amendments:  Judge  J.  Castberg,  of  Norway:  Provision  for  shifts  in  continu¬ 
ous  industries,  125;  amendment  withdrawn  and  recommended  for  conference 
of  1920,  125.  Mr.  L.  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes,  of  Cuba:  To  omit  words  “raw 
sugar”  from  proposed  amendments  of  Swedish  delegates,  275. 

- Closure:  Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France.  Closure  criticised,  126;  Mr.  T. 

Shaw,  of  Great  Britain:  motion  for  closure  made  and  seconded,  126;  voted  on 
and  carried,  126. 

- — - Remarks:  Dr.  J.  Cueva  Garcia,  of  Ecuador:  On  attitude  of  dele¬ 
gates  of  Ecuador,  127.  Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great  Britain:  Defense  of  work  of 
commission  on  article  as  embodied  in  its  report,  126. 

- art.  4  (2)  (compensatory  time  provision).  Amendment:  Mr.  C.  Ilg,  of 

Switzerland:  Altering  phraseology,  126;  voted  on,  lost,  127. 

- - art  4-6.  Amendment:  Senator  R.  G.  H  v.  Koch  and  Dr.  G.  Huss,  of 

Sweden:  Adding  certain  industries  to  those  enumerated  in  schedule  A  and 
reducing  the  hours  mentioned  in  schedule  B  of  draft  convention,  267. 

- art.  5  (provision  for  eases  where  art.  2  can  not  be  applied);  adopted,  127. 

- art.  6  (regulations  to  be  made  by  local  authorities  covering  permanent 

and  temporary  exceptions  to  art.  2);' adopted,  127. 

- Amendment:  Mr.  G.  Paus,  of  Norway:  To  omit  words  “in  each 

instance,”  127. 

- - Remarks:  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  On  provision  concerning 

seasonal  work,  127.  Mr.  G.  Paus,  of  Norway:  On  his  amendment,  127.  Hon. 
N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada:  On  provision  covering  seasonal  work,  127. 

- art.  7  (provision  for  sending  certain  material  to  International  Labor 

Bureau);  adopted,  127. 

- art.  8  (provision  for  facilitating  enforcement  of  convention  4;  adopted,  127. 

- art.  9  (provision  for  modifications  in  case  of  tropical  or  industrially  under¬ 
developed  countries). 

- — — Amendments :  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  To  delete  entire  ar¬ 
ticle,  in  view  of  commission  on  special  countries  having  submitted  a  sep¬ 
arate  report  in  form  of  a  convention,  carried,  128.  Dr.  C.  C.  Oliveira  Sampaio 
(Brazil):  To  include  maritime  transport  workers,  162;  ruled  out  of  order,  169. 
- — - Remarks:  Mr.  Sanji  Muto,  of  Japan:  Statement  objecting  to  ex¬ 
clusion  from  amendment  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  of  words  “imperfect  de¬ 
velopment  of  industrial  organization,”  68. 

- art.  10  (provision  for  suspension  of  convention).  Amendment:  Mr.  C. 

Ilg,  of  Switzerland:  To  delete  words  “in  event  of  war,”  128;  voted  on,  lost,  128. 

- Remarks:  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  Opposed  to  amendment 

of  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  128.  Dr.  J.  Varela,  of  Uruguay:  In  favor  of  amend¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  128. 

- art.  11  (time  of  enforcement  of  convention);  adopted,  128. 

— - Revised  text,  embodying  amendments  made,  based  on  draft  of  organizing 

committee,  presented,  114;  voted  on  for  submission  to  drafting  committee, 
178;  returned  by  drafting  committee,  178;  voted  on  by  record  vote  and  agreed 
to,  186:  text  in  full,  as  adopted,  256. 

Commission  on  hours  of  work  report  presented  by  Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France, 
114;  text  of  report  in  full,  222. 

Organizing  committee  draft  convention  (before  first  closure).  Closure:  Mr.  L. 

Jouhaux,  of  France:  Motion  to  close  debate,  voted  on,  carried,  49. 

- Motions:  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Immediate  vote  to  be  taken  on  mo¬ 
tion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37 

— - - - Hon.  G.  N.  Bames,  of  Great  Britain:  Adoption  of  convention 

as  basis  for  discussion,  with  exception  of  article  relative  to  tropical  countries, 
which  is  to  be  referred  to  a  special  committee,  35;  voted  on  with  amendment 
of  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  carried,  50. 

- Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  Amending  motion  of  Mr.  Bames 

(Great  Britain),  46. 

— - Mr.  S.  Gompers,  of  United  States:  To  refer  entire  subject  to  a 

special  committee  of  the  conference,  48;  voted  on,  lost,  49. 

- Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  Amending  motion  of  Mr  Barnes 

(Great  Britain)  49;  voted  on,  lost,  49. 

- Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great  Britain:  To  defer  discussion  on  motion  of 

Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  38. 

- - Remarks:  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Opposed  to  adjournment  for  pur¬ 
pose  of  gaining  time  to  consider  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

— - Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  of  Great  Britain:  Interpretation  of  treaty 

provisions  concerning  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  36.  Accepting  amend¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Fontaine  (France)  to  his  motion,  47.  Reviewing  draft  con¬ 
vention,  33. 

- - - Comm.  E.  Baroni,  of  Italy:  On  behalf  of  Italian  employers’ 

delegates  op  poses  employers’ alternative  proposals  submitted  by  Mr.  Marjori- 
banks  (Great  Britain),  42. 


286 


INDEX 


EIGHT-HOUR  DAY  AND  FORTY-EIGHT  HOUR  WEEK.  Organizing 
committee  draft  conventions  (before  first  closure).  Remarks:  Mr.  F.  M. 
Draper,  of  Canada:  Inquiry  as  to  binding  force  of  vote  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Barnes  (Great  Britain),  36. 

— - Mr.  J.  Carlier.  of  Belgium:  Supporting  Mr.  Schindler  (Switzer¬ 

land),  44,  49. 

■ - Mr.  J.  Cueva  Garcia,  of  Ecuador:  Opposed  to  motion  of  Mr. 

Baldesi  (Italy),  37. 

— - Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  Remarks  amending  motion  of  Mr. 

Barnes  (Great  Britain)  and  submitting  proposal  for  procedure  in  considering 
convention.  47. 

- - Mr.  S.  Gompers,  of  United  States:  Objecting  to  motion  of  Mr. 

Barnes  (Great  Britain),  48.  Attacking  employers’  proposal  made  by  Mr. 
Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  45. 

— - - - Mr.  L.  Guerin,  of  France:  Insisting  on  employers’  proposal  of 

Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  47.  Requesting  postponement  of  dis¬ 
cussion  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  36. 

- Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  In  favor  of  adjournment  of  discussion 

of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  38.  On  his  motion  to  close  debate, 
49.  On  motion  of  Mr.  Fontaine  (France)  and  in  reply  to  Mr.  Gudrin  (France) 
47. 

- - Mr.  L.  J.  Kershaw,  of  India:  Inquiry  as  to  intent  of  convention 

concerning  eastern  countries,  48. 

- Mr.  E.  Mahaim,  of  Belgium:  Suggesting  merger  of  employers’ 

and  workers’  propositions  of  Messrs.  Barnes  and  Marjoribanks  (Great 
Britain),  46. 

- - Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks,  of  Great  Britain:  Reply  to  Mr.  Gompers 

(United  States),  47.  Presenting  employers’  alternative  proposal,  41,  passed 
over,  50.  In  favor  of  adjournment  to  gain  time  for  consideration  of  motion 
of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

- - Baron  Mayor  des  Planches,  of  Italy:  Supporting,  with  exception 

of  its  disregard  of  agricultural  classes,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great 
Britain),  36.  Proposing  reference  of  amendments  of  Messrs.  Barnes  and 
Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain)  to  a  commission,  48.  Supporting  amendment 
of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  43. 

- Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  of  Netherlands:  Imperative  that  definite 

construction  be  put  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

- Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione,  of  Italy:  Supporting  workers’ 

proposal  for  reference  ol  convention  to  a  commission,  46. 

- Mr.  S.  R.  Paisons,  of  Canada:  Proposing  reference  of  that  part 

of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  relating  to  tropical  countries  to  a 
special  committee,  38. 

’• — - The  Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada:  In  favor  of  adjournment  to 

gain  time  for  consideration  of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 
Seconding  motion  of  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States),  for  reference  of  whole 
subject  to  a  committee,  38. 

- Dr.  H.  Riifenaeht,  of  Switzerland:  Supporting  motion  of  Mr. 

Barnes  (Great  Britain),  41. 

- Mr.  D.  Schindler,  of  Switzerland:  On  behalf  of  Swiss  employers’ 

delegates  supporting  proposal  of  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  42. 

— - Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great  Britain:  Further  immediate  discussion 

of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain)  undesirable,  moves  adjournment 
of  discussion,  38.  Opposing  motion  of  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States)  to  refer 
entire  subject  to  a  committee,  48.  Supporting  proposal  of  Mr.  Jouhaux 
(France),  46. 

- Dr.  J.  Varela,  of  Uruguay:  In  favor  of  immediate  discussion  of 

motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  38. 

— - Mr.  J.  A.  E.  Verkade,  of  the  Netherlands:  On  behalf  of  Nether¬ 

lands  employers’  delegates  opposing  alternative  proposal  of  Mr.  Marjori¬ 
banks  (Great  Britain),  41. 

- Recommendations:  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Remarks  in  general,  53; 

text  of,  228. 

- Text  of  convention,  227. 

Organizing  committee  draft  convention  (before  second  closure).  Amend¬ 
ments:  Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  Title  to  include  provision  for  commercial 
undertakings  and  the  words  “  maximum  of  8  hours  a  day  and  48  hours  a 
week,”  moved  on  behalf  of  workers’  delegates,  248. 

— -  Closure:  Mr.  A.  Crawford,  of  South  Africa:  Remarks  declaring  motion 

of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain)  to  be  out  ol  order,  71. 

• - Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain:  Motion  for  termination 

of  discussion,  66.  Remarks  withdrawing  motion  for  closure,  67.  Remarks 
in  favor  of  termination  of  discussion,  70. 

- Mr.  1’.  M.  Draper,  of  Canada.  Remarks  questioning  President’s 

ruling  on  closure,  71. 

- Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  Remarks  questioning  timeliness  of 

vote  on  motion  for  closure,  71. 

- Mr.  C.  Ilg,  of  Switzerland:  Opposed  to  motion  of  Mr.  Shaw 

(Great  Britain)  to  close  debate,  73. 

— - Mr.  C.  Mertens,  of  Belgium:  Opposing  motion  for  closure  of  Sir 

Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain),  71. 

— - Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  of  The  Netherlands:  Remarks  opposingmo- 

tion  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain)  to  close  debate,  66. 

— - Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons,  of  Canada:  Remarks  agreeing  with  ruling  of 

president,  54. 

— - President  of  Conference:  Ruling  relative  to  discussion  on,  54. 

- - Mr.  T.  Shaw,  of  Great  Britain:  Motion  for  closure  of  debate,  73. 

- - Motions;  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Declaration  by  conference  of  8-hour 

day  and  48-hour  week  to  be  maximum  length  of  working  hours,  and  appoint¬ 
ment  of  a  commission  to  study  details  of  application  ol  same,  74;  voted  on, 
lost,  76. 

— - Mr.  A.  Crawford,  of  South  Africa:  Motion  amending  motion  of 

Mr.  Rowell  (Canada)  substituting  words  “proceeds  to  discuss”  in  place  of 
“declares,”  75. 

— - Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  of  The  Netherlands:  Fixing  date  of  enforce¬ 

ment  of  convention,  and  excepting  certain  industries  for  stated  period,  70. 

- Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada:  Motion  to  refer  convention  and 

proposed  amendments  to  a  special  commission,  268. 

— - Remarks:  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Opposed  to  reference  of  convention 

to  a  commission  before  conference  shall  have  voted  on  principle  of  ques¬ 
tion,  74. 

- - Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  of  Great  Britain:  Protest  against  prolonged 

discussion  of,  53. 

- — - Mr.  F.  Calvo,  of  Panama:  On  behalf  of  Latin  American  delegates 

declaring  in  favor  of  principle  of  8-hour  day  and  48-liour  week,  68. 

— - Mr.  J.  Carlier,  of  Belgium:  Supporting  statement  of  Mr.  Marjori¬ 

banks  (Great  Britain),  66. 

- Judge  J.  Castberg,  of  Norway:  On  behalf  of  Norwegian  Govern¬ 
ment  delegates,  supporting  draft  convention,  with  stated  reservations,  56. 

- Mr.  A.  Crawford,  of  South  Africa:  Proposing  amendment  to  mo¬ 
tion  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  75,  76. 


EIGHT-HOUR  DAY  AND  FORTY-EIGHT  HOUR  WEEK.  Organizing 
committee  draft  convention  (before  second  closure).  Remarks:  Sir  Malcolm 
Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain:  Approving  amendment  of  Mr.  Crawford  to 
motion  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  75. 

- Mr.  A.  Fontaine,  of  France:  In  favor  of  reference  of  convention 

to  a  commission  74. 

- - Mr.  L.  Guerin,  of  France:  In  favor  of  reference  of  convention  to 

a  commission,  74.  Presenting  statement  of  French  employers’ delegates,  and 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  64. 

- Mr.  L.  Jouhaux,  of  France:  On  submitting  workers’  delegates’ 

amendments  to  convention,  59-61. 

- Mr.  D.  S.  Marjoribanks,  of  Great  Britain:  Supporting  arguments 

of  employers’  delegates,  Messrs.  Parsons  (Canada)  and  Guerin  (France), 
against  general  reductions  in  working  hours,  66. 

■  - Mgr.  W.  H.  Nolens,  of  The  Netherlands:  On  motion  stipulating 

time  for  enforcement  of  convention,  69.  In  favor  of  reference  of  convention 
to  a  commission  75. 

- Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglione,  of  Italy:  In  opposition  to  motion  oi 

Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  76. 

- Mr.  S.  R.  Parsons,  of  Canada:  Opposing  employers’  proposal  pre¬ 
sented  by  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  57.  On  statements  attached 
by  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  59. 

•  - Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada:  On  his  motion  for  reference  of 

convention  to  a  commission,  73. 

•  - Dr.  J.  Varela,  of  Uruguay:  Recommending  adoption  of  conven¬ 

tion,  68. 

ELIZALDE,  DR.  DON  RAFAEL  H„  (0/  Ecuador). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14).  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Motions:  Mexico  be  invited  to  attend  conference,  26,  265. 

- Thanks  to  Dr.  Royal  Meeker,  51. 

Remarks:  Ecuador’s  failure  to  appoint  employers’  or  workers’  delegates  ex¬ 
plained,  109. 

- - Invitation  to  Mexico  to  attend  conference,  26. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  minority  report  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  signed  by,  245. 

EMPLOYERS’  DELEGATES.  Accusation  of  being  obstructionists  denied  by 
Mr.  Carlier  (Belgium),  44. 

Accused  of  trying  to  throw  conference  into  confusion,  39 
Cuban:  Commission  on  credentials;  report  on  protest  of  employers  against 
Government  interference  in  selection  of  delegate  (Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes),  206. 
Members  of  committees  and  commissions:  Commission  on  credentials,  206. 
(Belgium;  J.  Carlier.) 

- - Commission  on  employment  of  children  (Belgium,  M.  Fraipont,  sub¬ 
stitute  for  J.  Carlier;  France,  E.  Henry,  substitute  for  L.  Guerin;  Greece, 
E.  Cantacuzdne;  India,  A.  R.  Murray;  Italy,  Comm.  Baroni,  substitute  for 
Ing.  Quartieri;  Spain,  A.  Sola),  247. 

- Commission  on  employment  of  women  (Belgium,  M.  de  Smet  de  Nayer; 

France,  E.  Henry;  Great  Britain,  D.  S.  Marjoribanks;  Italy,  Comm.  Baroni; 
Japan,  S.  Muto;  Sweden,  J.  S.  Edstrom:  Switzerland,  D.  Schindler)  243. 
- Commission  on  hours  of  work  (Belgium,  J.  Carlier;  Canada,  S.  R.  Par¬ 
sons;  France,  L.  Guerin;  Great  Britain,  D.  S.  Marjoribanks;  Switzerland, 

D.  Schindler),  222. 

■  - Commission  on  special  countries  (Cuba.  L.  Rosainz  y  de  los  Reyes; 

France,  L.  Guerin,  P.  Collinet,  substitute;  Great  Britain,  D.  S.  Marjori¬ 
banks,  G.  S.  Maginnes,  substitute;  India,  A.  R.  Murray;  Japan,  S.  Muto; 
South  Africa,  W.  Gemmill),  229. 

■  - Commission  on  standing  orders  (France,  A.  Goineau.  adviser;  Great 

Britain,  Dr.  Miall,  adviser;  Netherlands,  J.  A.  E.  Verkade),  213. 

- - Commission  on  unemployment  (Canada,  S.  R.  Parsons,  E.  B.  Robert¬ 
son,  substitute;  Czecho-Slovakia.  F.  Hodaez.A.  Kriz, substitute;  Denmark, 
H.  Vettlesen;  France,  L.  Guerin;  Great  Britain,  D.  S.  Marjoribanks,  A.  J.C. 
Ross,  substitute;  Italy,  Comm.  Baroni;  Japan,  S.  Muto,  Dr.  Hasogawa, 
substitute;  Netherlands,  H.  Blomjous,  J.  A.  E.  Verkade,  substitute;  Nor¬ 
way',  G.  Pans:  Poland,  J.  Zagleniczny),  233. 

•  - Commission  on  unhealthy  processes  (Belgium,  G.  Dallemagnc;  France, 

E.  Henry;  Great  Britain,  D.  S.  Marjoribanks:  Italy,  Comm.  Baroni;  Japan, 
S.  Muto;  Norway,  G.  Pans;  Switzerland,  D.  Schindler).  251. 

- Committee  of  selection  (Czecho-Slovakia.  F.  Hodaez:  France,  L. 

Gutfrin;  Great  Britain,  D.  S.  Marjoribanks;  Italy,  Comm.  Baroni;  Japan, 
S.  Muto;  Spain,  A.  Sala),  205. 

Motions:  Amendments  to  draft  convention  of  organizing  committee  limiting 
hours  of  work,  265. 

- Draft  convention  on  employment  of  women  during  the  night ,  268. 

Procedure  in  nomination  of  to  he  studied  by  International  Labor  Office, 
motion,  Mr.  Marino  Perez  (Cuba),  109. 

EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHILDREN.  See  Child  Labor. 

EMPLOYMENT  EXCHANGES.  See  also  Public  Employment  Exchanges. 
Italy:  National  Institute  for  Placement  and  for  Insurance  against  Unemploy¬ 
ment,  memorandum  on  administration  of,  Baron  Mavor  des  Planches  (Italv), 
241. 

Organizing  committee:  Control  of  employment  exchanges  by  the  State,  240. 
EMPLOYMENT  OF  WOMEN.  See  Woman  Labor. 

ENGEL,  JOHN  DAVID  F.  (of  India ,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  21  (16),  114. 
ENRIQUEZ,  DON  RAMON  (of  Nicaragua,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance :  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12(11), 
85;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114; 
Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (  21),  157; 
Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
ESPIL,  DR.  FELIPE  (of  Argentina,  Government  delegate). 

Reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers,  drait  convention  proposed  jointly 
with  Dr.  Anastasi  (Argentina),  241. 

Unemploy  ment,  joint  proposal  with  Dr.  Anastasi  in  matter  of  unemployment, 
240. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  6  (8).  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov. 
12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  21  (16), 
113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (8),  130;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
Member:  Committee  on  drafting,  100. 

•  - Committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

Remarks:  Finland,  admission  of,  to  International  Labor  Organization,  in  sup¬ 
port  of  minority  report  of  commission  on  application  for  admission,  87. 


INDEX. 


287 


EZA,  VISCOUNT  DE  (of  Spain ,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessionsof  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4).  30;  Nov. 3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77; 
Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov. 
24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (  24),  188. 

Member:  Commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

- Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

Motions:  Vocational  training,  270. 

Remarks:  Adoption  provisionally  of  standing  orders,  18. 

— —  Commision  on  unemployment;  scope  of  study  of,  to  include  social,  legal, 
and  economic  phases;  commission  to  be  enlarged  from  9  to  15,  31;  withdrawal 
of  suggestions,  32. 

- organizing  committee,  Spanish  translation  of  report  of,  17. 

- Spanish  language  an  official  language  of  conference,  18. 

FACTORY  INSPECTORS.  Organization  of,  formed  to  meet  annually,  simulta¬ 
neously  with  International  Labor  Conference,  158. 

FACTORY  LEGISLATION.  India;  remarks,  Mr.  Chatterjee  (India),  94;  remarks, 
Mr.  Joshi  (India),  95. 

FAMILY  WORK.  See  Home  Industries. 

FASOLATO,  G.  (of  Italy ,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  Baron 
Mayor  des  Planches,  39. 

- Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

FERNANDES,  MA  J.  TOMAS  (of  Portugal,  adviser  to  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

FERRAZ,  DR.  FALTSTO  (of  Brazil,  workers’ delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  special  countries,  opposed  to  excepting  Brazil  from 
recommendations  of  report,  167. 

- Interview  given  by  Dr.  Ferraz  to  “A  Razao,”  organ  of  working  classes 

of  Rio  de  Janeiro,  on  the  occasion  of  his  departure  on  November  3,  1919,  to 
attend  the  conference,  195. 

FINKEL,  HENRY  C.  (of  Persia,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

FINLAND.  Admission  to  International  Labor  Conference  (Washington),  Council 
of  League  of  Nations,  resolution  of.  16. 

- Letter  of  Councilor  League  of  Nations  of  October,  1919,  relerred  to,  21, 27. 

- - Remarks:  Mr.  Castberg  (Norway),  26. 

Admission  to  International  Labor  Organization.  Closure:  Dr.  J.  Cueva 
Garcia,  of  Ecuador:  Motion  and  remarks  in  favor  of  closure,  89. 

- Motions:  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Admission  of  Finland  by  conference 

on  same  conditions  as  obtain  in  case  of  other  countries  not  yet  adhering  to 
League  of  Nations,  amendment  to  motion  of  Mr.  Christie  (Canada),  89. 

- Mr.  L.  C.  Christie,  of  Canada:  Amending  minority  resolution  of 

Mr.  Rowell  (Canada).  88. 

- - Dr.  J.  Cueva  Garcia,  of  Ecuador:  Adoption  of  first  part  of  minority 

resolution  stricken  out  upon  motion  ol  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  89;  motion  ruled 
out  of  order  and  withdrawn,  90. 

- Remarks:  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy;  On  presenting  majority  report  of 

commission  on  applications  lor  admission,  78.  Accepting  minority  substi¬ 
tute  resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Christie  (Canada),  89. 

- Judge  J.  Castberg,  of  Norway:  Opposed  to  admission  of  Fin¬ 
land  to  International  Labor  Oreanization  by  conference.  83. 

■ - Mr.  L.  C.  Christie,  of  Canada:  Motion  with  substitute  minority 

resolutions,  88.  In  agreement  with  remarks  of  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  88. 

- Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  of  Great  Britain;  Supporting  minority 

report. 

- Dr.  F.  Espil,  of  Argentina:  Explanation  of  Argentine  delegates’ 

vote  in  favor  of  minority  report,  87. 

- Mr.  M.  Frai'pcnt,  of  Belgium:  In  favor  of  admitting  Finland  to 

International  Labor  Organization  on  same  terms  as  those  put  to  Austria 
and  Germany,  86. 

- Senator  R.  H.  G.  v.  Koch,  of  Sweden:  Supporting  majority 

report,  82. 

- S.  Neumann,  of  Denmark:  In  favor  of  formal  admission  of  Fin¬ 
land,  83. 

•  - Dr.  G.  di  Palma  Castiglionc,  of  Italy:  Supporting  majority 

report,  84. 

•  - Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell.  of  Canada:  Power  of  conference  to  admit 

Finland,  79.  On  presenting  minority  report,  78. 

- G.  H.  Stuart-Bunnine.  of  Great  Britain:  In  support  of  majority 

report,  criticizing  statements  made  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne,  88. 

- Reports:  Mr.  G.  Baldesi,  of  Italy:  Presenting  majority  report,  78;  text  of 

report  in  full,  208-209. 

- The  Hon.  N.  W.  Rowell,  of  Canada:  Presenting  minority 

report,  78;  text  of  report  in  full,  with  appendix,  being  opinion  of  legal  ad¬ 
viser.  Dr.  M.  O.  Hudson,  209-213. 

- Resolutions:  Majority  resolution,  text  of,  as  submitted.  209;  as  adopted, 

276.  Minorityresolution.t6xtof,82,  211;  amended  by  Mr.  Christie  (Canada), 
88;  by  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy).  89. 

White  phosphorus  in  manufacture  of  matches,  position  of  Finland  in  regard 
to,  letter  of  Mr.  A.  H.  Saastamoinen  (Finland)  to  secretary  general  of  con¬ 
ference,  274. 

FISHERMEN.  Hours  of  work,  remarks  by  Senator  v.  Koch  (Sweden),  117. 

FISHING  INDUSTRY.  Inclusion  of,  in  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  inquiry, 
Mr.  Rowell  (Canada).  122;  reply,  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  122. 

FLAX-SPINNING  INDUSTRY.  France,  number  of  spindles  before  and  after 
the  war,  65. 

FONTAINE,  ARTHUR  (of  France.  Government  delegate). 

Chairman  of  governing  body  of  International  labor  Office,  election  of,  168. 

Mentioned  by  Mgr.  Nolens,  of  Netherlands,  200. 

Permanent  president  of  conference,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson  (U.  S.  A.),  nominated 
by,  29. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28:  Oct.  31  (4), 30;  Nov.3(5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  24  (17).  123;  Nov.  25  (IS),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  31,  208. 

- Commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- Committee  of  selection,  31,  208. 

- Organizing  committee,  French  representative  on,  13. 

Motions:  Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee  draft  con¬ 
vention,  amending  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  read,  48. 

- International  Labor  Conference  unites  with  people  of  United  States  in 

expression  of  thanksgiving  and  praise  on  Thanksgiving  Day;  seconded,  Mr. 
G.  D.  Robertson  (Canada),  167. 


FONTAINE ,  ARTHUR— Continued. 

Motions:  Governing  body  of  international  labor  office  to  bz  given  certain  au¬ 
thority  pending  ratification  of  treaty  of  peace,  191;  voted  on,  carried,  195. 
Remarks:  Admission  of  German  and  Austrian  delegates,  20. 

- agenda  for  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920, 197. 

• - Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  demarcation  between 

agricultural  and  industrial  pursuits  in  case  of  lumber  and  logging  industries, 
to  be  determined  by  each  country;  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  122. 

- denying  contention  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada)  that  resolution  of 

commission  appended  to  final  report  is  out  of  order,  130. 

- fishing  industry  is  included  in  article  to  be  referred  to  a  special 

commission  on  maritime  labor;  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  122. 
- art.  1  (c),  correction,  119. 

- art.  1  (d),  opposed  to  amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  (South  Africa), 

to  include  inland  navigation,  116. 

- art.  1  (d),  opposed  to  amendment  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  119. 

- art.  2,  opposed  to  amendment  of  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  121. 

- art.  2  (a),  explanation  of  wording  of,  125. 

- art.  6,  provision  covering  seasonal  work,  127. 

- art.  9,  in  view  of  commission  on  tropical  countries  having  sub¬ 
mitted  report  in  form  of  a  separate  convention  proposal  to  delete  art.  9;  agreed 
to,  128. 

- art.  10,  opposed  to  amendment  of  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  128. 

- Commission  on  hours  of  work  report,  presentation  of,  114. 

- Commission  on  unemployment,  31. 

- Viscount  de  Eza’s  remarks  objected  to,  32. 

- draft  recommendations,  art.  2,  recruiting  of  foreign  workers,  in¬ 
quiry  regarding  understanding  as  to  consultation  procedure,  146. 

- governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  constitution  of,  196. 

- organizing  committee  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  in  favor  of  refer¬ 
ence  of  to  a  commission,  74. 

- amendment  to  proposal  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain);  procedure 

to  shorten  discussion  on  this  subject,  47. 

- organizing  committee’s  draft  resolution  on  admission  of  Germany  and 

Austria  to  International  Labor  Organization,  21. 

- organizing  committee’s  report,  Baldesi  amendment  to  point  16  of,  20. 

- permanent  secretary  general  Mr.  H.  B.  Butler  (Great  Britain),  nomi¬ 
nated,  29. 

- Spanish  translation  of  conference  documents  arranged  for  by  Pan  Amer¬ 
ican  Union,  18. 

- standing  orders,  provisional  adoption  of,  17,  18. 

Reports:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  presented,  114;  text  of,  222. 

- committee  of  selection,  205. 

- organizing  committee’s  report  read,  12. 

FORTY-EIGHT  HOUR  WEEK.  Steel  industry,  Italy;  adopted  May,  1919,  53. 

FORTY-EIGHT  HOUR  WEEK  AND  EIGHT-HOUR  DAY.  See  Eight-Hour 
Day  and  Forty-Eight  Hour  Week. 

FORTY-FOUR  HOUR  WEEK  AND  EIGHT-HOUR  DAY.  See  Eight-Hour 
Day  and  Forty-Eight  Hour  Week. 

FRAIPONT,  MARCEL  (of  Belgium,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 
Member:  Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  31,  208. 

- commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  amendment  of  Mr.  Gudrin  (France)  supported,  104. 
- Finland,  admission  of,  to  International  Labor  Organization;  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  art.  387,  treaty  of  peace  in  favor  of  admitting  Finland  to  International 
Labor  Organization  on  same  t  erms  as  those  put  to  Austria  and  Germany,  86. 

FRANCE.  Committee  on  enforcement  of  8-hour  day,  suggested  by,  14. 

Committee  on  study  of  employment  at  sea,  suggested  by,  14.' 

International  labor  office,  representation  on  governing  body  of,  13, 14. 

Shift  system,  104. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Collinet,  Paul,  member  of  commission  on  applications 
for  admission,  208. 

- Goineau,  A.,  member  of  commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

- Guerin,  L.,  member  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222;  member  of 

commission  on  special  countries,  229;  member  of  commission  on  unemploy¬ 
ment,  234;  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30,  205. 

- —  Henry,  E.,  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247; 

member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  251;  member  of  commission 
on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Delegates,  Government:  Boulin  (P.),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy 
processes,  251. 

- Fontaine  (A.),  member  of  commission  on  applications  for  admission, 

208;  member  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222;  member  of  commission 
of  selection,  29,  205. 

. - Lazard  (M.),  chairman  of  commission  on  unemployment,  233;  member 

of  committee  on  drafting,  221. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Bidegaray  (M.),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy 
processes,  251. 

- Bouvier  (Mile.  J.),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  women 

39,  243. 

- Dumoulin  (G.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

- Jouhaux  (L.),  appointment  of  protested,  report  of  committee  on  cre¬ 
dentials,  206;  elected  vice  president  for  workers’  group,  29;  member  of  com 
mission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222;  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30,  205 
- Lenoir,  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 

FRANCO,  DR.  AFRANIO  DE  MELLO.  See  Mello  Franco,  Dr.  Afranio  de. 

FRANCO,  ALFREDO  (of  Portugal,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91:  Nov. 
17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17); 
124)  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157, 
Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

FRANTZ,  SVETA  (of  the  Serb,  Croat  and  Slovene  State,  workers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov. 
20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  26  (  21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168. 

FREE  EMPLOYMENT  EXCHANGES.  See  Public  Employment  Exchanges. 

FRENCH  CATHOLIC  TRADE-UNIONS.  Objection  by  to  nominations,  15. 

GARCIA,  DR.  DON  JUAN  CUEVA.  See  Cueva  Garcia,  Dr.  Don  Juan. 

GASCON  MARIN,  JOSE  (of  Spain,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  draft  convention  amend¬ 
ment  to  arts.  1  (6),  2,  3,  7,  presented  jointly  with  Mr.  Posada,  text  of,  269. 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  27  (22),  168; 

Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  ol  women  draft  convention  concerning 
employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  art.  1  (definition  of  indus¬ 
trial  undertakings).  Amendment  to  include  commercial  undertakings  in 
definition,  presented  for  Mr.  Posada  and  Mr.  Gascon  Marin  (Spain),  174. 
- art.  1,  amendment,  procedure  on  vote  of,  189. 


288 


INDEX. 


GEMMILL,  WILLIAM  (of  South  Africa,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov, 
19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25 
(18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (  20),  147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22), 
168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  1S8;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

Motions:  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  resolution.  No.  4,  amended 
to  regulate  European  representation  on  proposed  international  commisssion 
137;  248;  voted  on,  carried,  153. 

- governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  amendment  of  art.  393  (7) 

of  peace  treaty  providing  for  composition  of,  196;  voted  on  by  record  vote 
and  carried,  197;  text  of  as  adopted,  271.  . 

Remarks:  Governing  board  of  international  labor  office,  objection  to  method 
of  electing  members  of,  132. 

- inquiry  as  to  composition  of,  168. 

- to  be  more  truly  representative  of  non-European  countries,  191. 

- protest  against  motion  for  closure  of  debate  on,  1 96. 

- - — reciprocity  of  treatment  of  workers  provided  for  in  draft  resolution  No. 

4  of  commission  on  unemployment;  amendment  regulating  European  repre¬ 
sentation  on  commission;  protest  against  unequal  representation  on  govern¬ 
ing  body  of  intemationallabor  office,  137. 

GERMAN  TRADES-UNIONS.  Telegram  ofNov. 3, signed  by,  welcoming  decision 
to  admit  representatives,  33. 

GERMANY.  Admission  to  conference,  14, 21.  > 

- Council  of  League  of  Nations,  resolution  of  Sept.  11,  1919,  text  of,  15; 

referred  to,  21.  iel 

admission  to  International  Labor  Organization  discussed,  21-25. 

- - Remarks:  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  78;  Mr.  Fraipont  (Belgium),  86;  Mr. 

Rowell  (Canada),  87. 

- - resolution  of  organizing  committee  introduced,  21,  276. 

Admi  sion  to  International  Labor  Organization  and  to  conference,  documents 
concerning,  15. 

Delegates,  appointment  of  announced,  15. 

- transportation  of,  motion  of  Messrs.  Jouhaux  (France),  Oudegeest 

(Netherlands),  and  Mertens  (Belgium),  265. 

- - telegram  explaining  their  failure  to  arrive  in  time  to  take  part  m  con¬ 
ference,  177.  . 

International  labor  office,  invitation  to  Germany  to  nominate  Governmeni 
delegate  and  to  communicate  a  workers’  delegate  on  governing  body  of,  131. 

- - represented  conditionally  on  governing  body  of,  13,  14. 

Polish  oppression  by,  remarks,  Mr.  Bernatowicz  (Poland),  31. 

GIDE,  CHARLES,  reference  to,  69. 

GLIBERT,  DESIRE  (of  Belgium,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

GODAI,  DR.  RYUSAKU  (of  Japan,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  25  (18),  130. 


GOINEAU,  A.  (of  France,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  25  (18),  130. 

Member:  Committee  on  standing  orders,  31;  213. 

GOKHALE,  GOPAL  K.  Compulsory  education  bill  introduced  in  Indian  Legisla¬ 
tive  Council  by,  in  1911;  referred  to,  96. 


GOMPERS,  SAMUEL  (o/  the  United  States).  Nominated  representative  by 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  28. 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  5  (7),  50. 

Member:  Committee  on  applications  for  admission,  31. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  233. 

- organizing  committee,  United  States  representative  on,  13. 

Motions:  Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee  draft  con¬ 
vention,  that  whole  subject  and  all  proposals  be  referred  to  a  committee, 
voted  on,  lost,  49. 

Remarks:  Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee  draft  con¬ 
vention,  attacking  employers’  alternative  proposal  made  by  Mr.  Marjori¬ 
banks  (Great  Britain),  45. 

- motion  by  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  objected  to,  48. 

GONDRA,  DR.  MANUEL  (of  Paraguay,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  (3),  30, 28;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4 
(6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12 
(11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (20),  146; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Motion:  Governing  body  of  international  labor  office  to  be  invested  with 
power  to  revise  its  own  composition,  seconded,  Mr.  Armenteros  y  Cardenas 
(Cuba),  914;  ruled  out  of  order,  195. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  reduction  in 
wages  by  reason  of  enforcement  of  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  supporting 
motion  of  Messrs.  Jouhaux  (France)  and  Baldesi  (Italy),  opposed  to,  130. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  resolution,  No.  4,  in  favor  of  amend¬ 
ment  of  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa),  151. 

-  geverning  body  of  international  labor  office  not  properly  representative 


of  Latin  American  countries,  191. 


GONZALES,  VICENTE  (of  Peru,  employers’  delegate). 

A Uendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1, 2),  19;  Oct.  30 (3), 28;  Oct.  31  (4), 30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12).  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18).  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26 
(21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25), 
201. 

GONZALES  POSADA,  ADOLFO  (of  Spain,  Government  delegate). 

Employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth  draft  convention  amend¬ 
ment,  to  arts.  1  (b),  2,  3, 7;  joint  statement  with  Mr.  J.  Gascon  Marin  (Spain), 


Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3), 28;  Oct.  31(4), 30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26 
(21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188. 

Member:  Committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

Remarks:  Compulsory  unemployment  insurance  supported,  150. 

- Spanish  law  on  night  work  of  women,  105. 

GOVERNMENT  DELEGATES.  Argentina:  Reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign 
workers,  draft  convention  proposed  by  delegation,  241. 

- unemployment,  joint  proposal  of  Dr.  Anastasi  and  Dr.  Espilin  matter 

of  unemployment,  240. 

Meeting  of,  Oct.  30,  27. 

Members  of  committees  and  commissions  (chairmen  in  italics):  Commission 
on  applications  for  admission  (Canada,  R.  W.  Rowell;  France,  A.  Fontaine), 


AAJO. 

- commission  on  credentials  (Great  Britain,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne), 


206. 


GOVERNMENT  DELEGATES.  Members  of  committees  and  commissions: 
Commission  on  employment  of  children  (Cuba,  C.  Armenteros  y  Cardenas, 
Czecho-Slovakia,  J.  Sousek;  Great  Britain,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne:  Italy,  G. 
Fasolato,  substitute  for  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches;  Japan.  Dr.  Uyeda, 
substitute  for  Dr.  Oka;  South  Africa,  H.  Warington  Smyth;  Switzerland, 
Dr.  Sulzer),  247. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women  (Ecuador,  Dr.  Elizalde:  France, 

Mme.  Letellier:  Great  Britain,  C.  Smith:  India,  L.  J.  Kershaw;  Italy,  Mme. 
Casartelli-f  abrini;  Japan,  E.  Kamada;  Norway,  Judge  Castberg),  243. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  (Belgium,  E.  Mahaim;  Canada,  Q.  D. 

Robertson;  France,  A.  Fontaine;  Great  Britain,  G.  N.  Barnes;  Netherlands, 
Mgr.  Nolens),  222. 

- commission  on  special  countries  (China,  Lingoh  Wang,  Ytm-Ching 

Yang,  substitute;  Great  Britain,  G.  N.  Barnes:  India,  L.  J.  Kershaw;  Italy, 
G.  Bernardi,  substitute  for  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches;  Japan,  Dr.  Oka; 
Persia,  H.  C.  Finkel;  Poland,  J.  Zagleniczny,  M.  Jastrebowski,  substitute; 
Siam,  Phya  Chanindr  Bhakdi;  South  Africa,  H.  Warington  Smyth;  Switzer¬ 
land.  Dr.  Sulzer;  Venezuela,  Dr.  Dominici),  229. 

-  Commission  on  standing  orders  (Belgium,  E.  Mahaim;  India,  L.  J. 

Kershaw-;  Spain,  Viscount  de  Eza),  213. 

— - commission  on  unemployment  (Belgium,  M.  L6vie,  A.  Julin,  substi¬ 

tute;  Canada,  F.  A.  Acland,  G.  D.  Robertson,  substitute;  Denmark,  C.  V. 
Bramsnaes;  France,  M.  hazard;  Great  Britain,  G.  N.  Barnes;  J.  F.  G.  Price, 
substitute;  Greece,  J.  Sofianopolous;  Italy;,  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione;  Poland, 

F.  Sokal;  Portugal,  Maj.  Fernandez;  Spain,  Viscount  de  Eza),  233. 

-  commission  on  unhealthy  processes  (Belgium,  D.  Glibert;  Czecho¬ 
slovakia,  C.  Spinka;  France,  P.  Boulin;  Great  Britain,  Dr.  Legge ;  Italy, 

G.  Fasolato;  Netherlands,  G.  J.  van  Thienen;  Portugal,  Dr.  Camoesas),  251. 
- Committee  on  drafting  (Argentina,  Dr.  Espil;  Belgium,  E.  Mahaim; 

Canada,  L.  C.  Christie;  France.  M.  hazard;  India,  Capt.  Abraham),  221. 

- Committee  of  selection  (Argentina,  Dr.  Espil;  Belgium,  E.  Mahaim; 

Canada,  G.  D.  Robertson;  Denmark,  S.  Neumann;  France,  A.  Fontaine; 

Germany,  - ;  Great  Britain,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne;  Italy,  Dr.  di 

Palma  Castiglione;  Japan,  Dr.  Oka;  Poland,  F.  Sokal;  Spain,  A.  G.  Posada; 
Switzerland,  Dr.  Sulzer),  205. 

GOVERNMENT  HEALTH  SERVICES.  See  Public  Health  Services. 

GREAT  BRITAIN. 

Anthrax  (see  Anthrax). 

Delegates;  Butler  (H.  B.),  chosen  secretary  general  of  conference,  29. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Mlall  (Dr.  S.),  member  of  commission  on  standing 
orders,  31,  213. 

- Marjoribanks  (D.  S.),  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30,  205;  mem¬ 
ber  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  251;  member  of  commission  on 
hours  of  work,  77,  222;  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  women, 
39,  243;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234:  member  of  commis¬ 
sion  on  special  countries,  229. 

- Ross  (A.  J.  C.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute 

for  Mr.  Marjoribanks,  234. 

Delegates,  Government:  Barnes  (Hon.  G.  N.),  chairman  of  commission  on 
special  countries,  229;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234;  mem¬ 
ber  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222;  elected  vice  president  for  Govern¬ 
ments  represented,  29. 

- Delevingne  (Sir  Malcolm),  member  of  commission  of  selection,  29,  205; 

member  of  commission  on  credentials,  206;  member  of  commission  on  em¬ 
ployment  of  children,  as  chairman,  247. 

- Legge  (Dr.  T.  M.),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes, 

as  chairman,  251. 

- Price  (J.  F.  G.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment  ,  as  substitute 

for  Mr.  Barnes,  234. 

- Smith  (Miss  Constance),  member  and  chairman  of  commission  on 

employment  of  women,  243. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Bondfield  (Miss  Margaret),  member  of  commission  on 
employment  of  children,  247. 

- MacArthur  (Miss  Mary),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of 

women,  243. 

- Sexton  (J.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute 

for  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning,  234. 

- Shaw  (T.),  member  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

-  Stuart-Bunning  (G.  H.),  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30,  205; 

member  ol  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  251;  member  of  commission 
on  unemployment,  234;  member  ol  commission  on  special  countries,  229. 
International  iabor  office,  representation  on  governing  body  of,  13, 14. 

GREECE. 

Child  labor:  Law  of  Jan.  24,  1912;  remarks  of  Mr.  Sofianopoulos  (Greece),  97. 
Delegates,  employers’:  Cantacuzene  (E.),  member  of  commission  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  children,  247. 

Delegates,  Government:  Sofianopoulos  (J.),  member  of  commission  on  un¬ 
employment,  234. 

Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries  recommends  exemption  of 
Greece  from  application  of  art.  405  of  treaty  of  peace,  158. 

- exemption  of  Greece  for  two  years  from  application  of  hours  of  work 

convention;  text  of  supplementary  report  of  commission  on  special  countries, 
233. 

- Grecian  Government  delegates’,  Messrs.  Sofianopoulos  and  Skinzopoulos, 

motion  to  delay  for  not  less  than  three  years,  application  to  Greece  of  draft 
convention  of  organizing  committee,  268. 

GREENWOOD,  ERNEST  H.  (of  the  United  States,  Deputy  secretary  general  of  the 
conference). 

Remarks:  Conference  proceedings  in  Spanish,  17. 

GROENEWEG,  MME.  SUZE  (of  The  Netherlands,  adviser  to  Government  delegates) 
Attendance:  Session  ofNov.  19  (14),  100. 

GROUITCH,  DR.  SLAVKO  Y.  (of  the  Serb,  Croat  and  Slovene  State,  Government 
delegate). 

Unable  to  attend  seventh  session,  40. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (J),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  21. 

(16),  114;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188. 

Motions:  Thanks  to  Pan  American  Union  for  hospitality,  12. 

Remarks:  Adoption  provisionally  of  standing  orders,  18. 

- credentials  of  Serbs,  Croats,  and  Slovenes,  27. 

GUATEMALA.  Delegates,  workers’:  Commission  on  credentials,  report  of  on 
protest  in  regard  to  appointment  of  labor  delegate,  Mr.  M.  Moreno,  109,  207. 

GUERIN,  LOUIS  (of  France,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  ol  Oct.  29(1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov  .6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20), 
146;  Nov.  26  (  21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187; 
Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38, 233. 


INDEX 


289 


GUERIN  LOUIS — Continued. 

Member:  committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

- international  labor  office,  employers’  member  of  governing  body  of,  131. 

Motions:  Commission  on  unemployment,  majority  report,  conclusions  to  be 
referred  to  international  labor  office  for  allocation  to  proper  departments, 
joint  motion  with  Mr.  Schindler  (Switzerland),  141,  26S;  voted  on,  lost,  143. 

- draft  conventions  to  be  submitted  to  a  commission,  47. 

-  proposal  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain)  for  adoption  of  commission  on 

hours  of  work  draft  convention  as  basis  for  discussion,  37. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  Germany  and  Austria,  organizing  committee’s  resolu¬ 
tion  on.  opposed,  26. 

■ - admission  of  Germany  and  Australia  to  International  Labor  Organiza¬ 

tion,  opposed,  21-23. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women,  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  on  shift  system  amendment.  104. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  criticism  of  work  of  commission  as 

including  much  extraneous  matter,  141. 

- committee  meeting  arrangements  objected  to,  39. 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention  8-hour  day,  requesting  postpone¬ 
ment  of  discussion  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  36. 

- - -  insisting  on  employers’  alternative  proposal  made  by  Mr. 

Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  47. 

- statement  on  behalf  of  French  employers’  delegation,  64. 

- in  favor  of  reference  of  to  a  commission,  74. 

- — —  organizing  committee’s  report,  16,  17. 

HAITI.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

IIASEGAWA,  DR.  SHOGO  (of  Japan,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Sanji  Muto,  234. 
HAYES,  ALEJANDRO  JOSEPH  (of  Argentina,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  24  (17).  123. 

HEALTH  HAZARDS.  See  Dangerous  Trades. 

HEDEBOL,  PEDER  (of  Denmark,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187; 
Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Madsen, 
39,  247. 

HENRY,  E.  (of  France,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Charts  and  documents  illustrating  business  of  raris-Lyons-Mediterranean 
Railway  Co.  in  possession  of,  referred  to,  65. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  GuSrin, 
39,  247. 

- - commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  minority  report  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  signed  by,  245. 

HESSELGREN,  MISS  KERSTIN  (of  Sweden,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

Member:  Factory  inspectors’  provisional  committee,  158. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  draft  convention  concerning 
employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  in  support  of  minority 
report,  173. 

— - report,  majority,  on  employment  of  women  at  night,  in  support 

of,  105. 

HETHERINGTON,  H.  J.  W.  (of  Great  Britain). 

Member:  Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  as  secretary,  208. 

- - commission  on  credentials,  as  secretary,  206. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

HIGGINSON,  EDUARDO  (of  Peru,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8), 
56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91:  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19 
(14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22), 
168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

HJELMER,  MME.  MARIE  (adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  24  (17),  123. 

HODACZ,  F.  (of  Czechoslovakia,  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85; 
Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov. 
25  (19),  138;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

-  committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

- employers’  member  of  governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  131. 

ITOLRROP,  B.  (of  The  Netherlands,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  17  (13),  92. 

HOME  WORK,  regulation  of.  remarks  by  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  120. 
HOOVER,  HERBERT.  “Report  on  the  Economic  Situation  in  Europe”  re¬ 
ferred  to,  66. 

Tribute  to,  by  Mr.  Guerin,  employers’  delegate  (France),  66. 

HOURS  OF  WORK— 

Brazil  (see  Brazil). 

Cuba  (see  Cuba). 

Eight-hour  day  (see  Eight-hour  day  and  Forty-eight  hour  week). 

Fishermen,  remarks,  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden),  117. 

Forty-eight  hour  week  (see  Forty-eight  hour  week). 

Fortv-eight  hour  week  and  eight-hour  day  (see  Eight-hour  day  and  Forty- 
eight  hour  week). 

Greece  (see  Greece). 

India  (see  India). 

Japan  (see  Japan). 

Longest  hours  found  in  countries  where  improvement  in  machinery  is  least; 
long  working  hours  reduce  production;  remarks,  Mr.  Gompers  (United 
States),  45. 

Persia  (see  Persia). 

Roumania  (see  Roumania). 

Siam  (see  Siam). 

South  Africa  (see  South  Africa). 

Transport  workers;  Swiss  legislation;  remarks,  42. 

Tropical  countries  (see  commission  on  special  countries). 

Wages  and  (see  Wages  and  hours). 

HOUSE  INDUSTRIES.  See  Home  Work. 

HUDSON,  Dr.  MANLEY  O.  Letter  to  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingno  concerning  nomi¬ 
nation  of  delegates  and  advisers,  207. 

Opinion  on  membership  in  League  of  Nations  and  International  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation,  respectively,  211. 

Member:  Drafting  committee,  92. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  draft  convention  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  proposal  that  drafting  com¬ 
mittee’s  text  serve  as  text  for  vote,  186. 

- presenting  drafting  committee’s  report  on  five  draft  conventions  adopted 

by  conference,  178. 


HUGG,  J.  B.  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  17  (13),  92. 

HUININK,  S.  TEN  BOKKEL  (of  The  Netherlands,  adviser  to  employers'  delegate). 
Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  as  substitute  for  M.  Oudegeest,  229. 

HUSS,  DR.  E.  GUNNAR  (of  Sweden,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Substitute  for  Mr.  Sjoborg  (Sweden),  because  of  latter’s  illness,  announced,  33. 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (J),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (  20),  147; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
Motions:  Hours  of  work  draft  convention,  Arts.  4-6  amendments  presented 
jointly  with  Senator  R.  G.  H.  von  Koch  (Sweden),  267. 

ILG,  CONRAD  (of  Switzerland,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2)  19;  Oct.  30  (3)  2S;  Oct.  31  (4)  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14), 
100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130; 
Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  26  (  21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov. 
28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  188;  Nov.  29  (  25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

— - - Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

Motions:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  4  (2),  eompen- 
satorv  time  provision,  conditional  amendment  proposed,  126. 

- Saturday  half  holiday  to  be  included  in  agenda  of  next  conference,  123; 

ruled  out  of  order,  123;  text  of,  272. 

- shift  system  for  women,  referred  to  committee,  106. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  opposed  to  introduction  of  shift  system  principle 
into  report,  106. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  opposed  to  closure  of 

debate  on,  73. 

- — —  art.  2  (a),  proposing  amendment,  125. 

- — —  art.  4,  criticism  of  wording  of,  126. 

- - — art.  10,  amendment  to  delete  words  "in  event  of  war,”  128; 

rejected,  128. 

—  - eight-hour  day  for  five  days  and  less  than  8  hours  on  Saturday,  proposal 

to  place  question  on  agenda  for  next  conference,  123. 

- - protest  against  ruling  of  president  in  refusing  the  floor  on  a  point  of 

order;  discrimination  against  workers’  delegates  implied,  124. 

—  - unemployment  an" international  problem;  minority  report  of  commis¬ 

sion  on  unemployment  by  Mr.  Baldesi. (Italy),  basis  for  a  remedy,  137. 

IMMIGRATION.  Latin  American  countries  welcome  immigrants,  remarks  by  Dr. 
Anastasi  (Argentina),  155. 

INDIA.  Child  labor:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  remarks  by  Mr, 
Warington  Smyth  (South  Africa)  in  explanation  of  commission’s  report  on 
minimum  age  and  in  defense  of  India,  95. 

- remarks  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britain),  on  extent 

of  commission's  consideration  of,  93. 

- remarks  by  Mr.  Chatterjee  (India),  opposed  to  Bondfield  amend¬ 
ment,  94. 

- - motion  by  Miss  Bondfield  (Great  Britain),  to  add  clause  to  con¬ 
vention  relative  to,  93;  voted  and  carried,  98. 

- remarks  by  Mr.  Joshi  (India),  supporting  Bondfield  amendment, 

95. 

- remarks  by  Mr.  Baldesi(Italy),  supporting  Stuart-Bunning[i.  e., 

Bondfield]  amendment,  97. 

Compulsory  education  in;  remarks  by  Mr.  Chatterjee  (India),  94;  Mr.  Joshi 
(India),  96. 

Delegates:  Abraham  (E.L'member  of  committee  on  drafting,  221. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Murray  (A.  R.),  member  of  commission  on  special 
countries,  229;  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 
Delegates,  Government:  Kershaw  (L.  J.),  member  of  commission  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women,  39,  243;  member  of  commission  on  special  countries,  229; 
member  of  commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Joshi  (N.  M.),  member  of  commission  on  special  countries, 
229;  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243;  provisional 
_substitute  for  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States)  on  commission  on  applications 
for  admission,  208;  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 
Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries  recommends  exemption  of 
India  from  application  of  art.  405  of  treaty  of  peace,  158. 

- remarks  by  Mr.  Joshi  (India),  regarding  motion  for  adoption  of  report  of 

commission  on  "special  countries  in  so  far  as  latter  applies  to  India,  168. 

- motion  of  Mr.  Joshi  (India),  amending  report  of,  267. 

- report  on  India,  231. 

Maternity  protection  (see  that  title). 

INDUSTRIAL  DEMOCRACY.  See  Labor  Participation  in  Management  of 
Production. 

INDUSTRIAL  RELATIONS.  Employers’  attitude;  remarks  by  Mr.  Carlier  (Bel¬ 
gium),  44. 

INLAND  NAVIGATION. 

Hours  of  work  draft  convention:  Art.  I  (c),  correction,  remarks  by  Mr.  Rowell 
(Canada),  119;  by  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  119. 

— — —  art.  1  (d),  amendment  to  include  inland  navigation,  introduced  by  Mr. 
Smyth  (South  Africa),  116;  supported  by  Mr.  Saastamomen  (Finland),  119; 
and  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden),  117;  opposed  by  Mr.  Fontaine  (France), 
116,  119;  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  116;  by  Mr.  Shaw  (Great  Britain),  118; 
Mr.  Castberg  (Norway),  118. 

- -  amendment  to  include  inland  navigation,  introduced  by  Mr. 

Rowell  (Canada),  119,  120;  opposed  by  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  119;  Mr. 
Jouhaux  (France),  119;  Mgr.  Nolens  (Netherlands),  119. 

INSURANCE,  UNEMPLOYMENT.  See  Unemployment  Insurance. 

INTERNATIONAL  COMMISSION  TO  REGULATE  MIGRATION  OF  WORK¬ 
ERS,  creation  of, resolution  of  International  Labor  Conference,  276. 

INTERNATIONAL  CONGRESS  OF  WORKING  WOMEN.  Resolution  of  for 
8-hour  day  and  44-hour  week  presented,  33. 

Resolution  of  on  child  labor;  referred  to  committee  on  employment  of  children, 
50. 

INTERNATIONAL  CONVENTION  AT  BERN.  1906.  Prohibition  of  use  of 
white  phosphorus  in  match  industry,  roll  of  member  countries  which  had 
not  adhered  to  convention  and  their  present  attitude,  171. 

INTERNATIONAL  CONVENTION  RELATING  TO  PROHIBITION  OF 
INDUSTRIAL  NIGHT  WORK  OF  WOMEN,  1906  SEPT.  26;  BERN. 
Amended,  commission  on  employment  of  women,  102. 

Organizing  committe’s  conclusions  that  conference  recommend  adhesion  to 
Bern  convention  of  all  States  members  of  the  league,  246. 

States  which  have  adhered  to  convention,  list  of,  247. 

INTERNATIONAL  INSTITUTE  OF  AGRICULTURE.  Delegate  of  United 
States  (see  Lubin  (David)  ). 


146865°— 20 - 19 


290 


INDEX. 


INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE,  1919. 

Admission  to  conference:  Austria  (see  Austria). 

- Dominican  Republic  (see  Dominican  Republic). 

- Finland  (see  Finland). 

- Germany  (see  Germany). 

- Luxemburg  (see  Luxemburg). 

- Mexico  (see  Mexico). 

- Netherlands  (see  Netherlands). 

- Norway  (see  Norway). 

- Nongovernment  delegates,  rules  of  procedure  for  nomination  of, 

motion  of  Mr.  Armen teros  y  Cardenas  and  Mr.  Justiz  (Cuba),  274. 

- Powers  of  conference  in  respect  of  admission  of  members  not  members  of 

League  of  Nations,  motion  bv  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa)  90;  revised  91, 
265. 

- Procedure  of  admission  to,  remarks  by  Mr.  Cueva  Garcia  (Ecuador),  89. 

- -  Right  of  admission  to  conference  interpreted  by  Dr.  di  Palma  Casti- 

glione  (Italy), 85. 

Agenda,  13,  14. 

Closing  of  conference,  remarks  on  behalf  of  Government.  Mgr.  Nolens  (Nether¬ 
lands),  200;  on  behalf  of  employers,  Mr.  Carlier  (Belgium),  200;  on  behalf 
of  workers,  Mr.  Ondeglest  (Netherlands),  200. 

Conventions  adopted  by  conference;  Distribution  of,  motion  by  Mr.  Lazard 
(France)  on  behalf  of  drafting  committee,  that  international  labor  office  be 
instructed  to  distribute  copies  of  draft  conventions  to  all  States  not  members 
of  International  Labor  Organization,  191. 

Draft  conventions  adopted  by  general  conference,  text  of,  256. 

Employment  of  children  (see  Child  labor). 

Employment  of  women  (see  Women  labor;  also  Maternity  protection). 
Extension  of  to  States  not  members  of  International  Labor  Organization,  reso¬ 
lution  of  International  Labor  Conference,  277. 

Hours  of  work  (see  Eight-hour  day  and  Forty-eight  hour  week). 

Observations  of  Dr.  A.  Mello  Franco  (Brazil)  on  the  conference,  the  relation  of 
Latin  America  in  general  and  Brazil  in  particular  on  certain  of  its  decisions 
191. 

Proceedings,  provision  for  printing  and  distribution,  188. 

Resolutions,  276. 

Unemployment  (see  Unemployment;  also  Reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign 
workers). 

INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  CONFERENCE,  1920. 

Agenda  International  Labor  Conference,  1919,  resolution  for  preparation  of,  277. 
Agenda  debated  by  Mr.  Moore  (Canada),  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  Mr.  Lazard 
(France),  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy),  Mgr.  Nolens  (Netherlands), 
Mr.  Castberg  (Norway),  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  and  Mr.  Sala  (Spain), 
197-199. 

INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  LEGISLATION.  See  Labor  Legislation. 

INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  OFFICE.  Commission  to  consider  organization, 
appointment  of,  proposed,  14. 

Director  of,  M.  Albert  Thomas  (France),  provisional  director,  16S. 

Governing  body:  Authority  of,  to  render  resolutions  of  conference  effective, 
motion,  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  191;  voted  on,  carried,  195. 

- motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  to  postpone  consideration  of 

motion  by  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  193;  voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost,  194. 
- International  Labor  Conference  resolution  delegating  authority  to,  rela¬ 
tive  to  rendering  effective  the  measures  of  the  conference,  276. 

- remarks,  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  on  motion  of  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  193. 

- chairman,  Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  elected  permanent  chairman,  168. 

- closure  of  debate  on,  moved,  Mr.  Mahain  (Belgium),  196;  seconded  by 

Mr.  Edstrom  (Sweden),  196;  protested  by  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa),  196; 
voted  on,  carried,  197. 

- difficulties  of  selection,  13. 

- election  of,  131. 

- meeting  of,  168. 

- representation  on;  amendment  by  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa)  of  art. 

393  (7)  of  peace  treaty  providing  for  composition  of,  271. 

- composition  of,  disapproval  moved  by  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa), 

seconded  by  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  voted  on,  carried,  196;  remarks, 
Mr.  Fontaine  (France),  196;  inquiry  by  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa),  as  to, 
16S. 

- constitution  of,  14;  objected  to  by  Canada,  Poland,  and  Sweden,  14. 

- International  Labor  Conference  resolution  of  disapproval,  276. 

- Latin  American  countries,  protest  against  insufficient  representation, 

Messrs.  Carrera  Justiz  (Cuba),  and  Cueva  Garcia  (Ecuador).  131. 

- Latin  American  countries  not  properly  represented,  remarks,  Dr. 

Gondra  (Paraguay),  191. 

—  - non-European  representation  inadequate,  remarks,  Dr.  Gemmill 

(South  Africa),  191. 

—  - -  objection  against  method  of  electing  members  of,  remarks  by  Messrs. 

Crawford  (South  Africa)  and  Gemmill  (South  Africa),  132. 

- - representatives  of  in  each  country,  motion  by  Mr.  Largo  Caballero 

(Spain)  for  appointment  of,  271. 

- to  be  invested  with  power  to  revise  its  own  composition,  motion  by 

Dr.  Gondra  (Paraguay),  seconded  by  Mr.  Armenteros  y  Cardenes  (Cuba), 
194;  ruled  out  of  order,'  195. 

—  - unequal  representation  on;  protest  by  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa),  137. 

Labor  policy  of,  to  be  included  in  program  of  next  conference,  motion  by  Mr. 

Largo  Caballero  (Spain),  272. 

Located  provisionally  in  London,  188. 

Section  on  administrative  study  of  migratory  workers  proposed,  134;  resolution 
of  International  Labor  Conference,  276. 

Section  on  health:  Appointment  of  advisory  committee  moved  by  Dr.  Miall 
(Great  Britain),  100,  270;  motion  discussed,  101;  voted  on,  carried  unani¬ 
mously,  101. 

- International  Labor  Conference,  resolution  for  appointment  of  an 

advisory  committee,  277. 

Unhealthy  trades,  research  recommended  by  organizing  committee  to  be 
undertaken  by  international  labor  office,  254. 

INTERNATIONAL  LABOR  ORGANIZATION.  Admission  to,  opinion  on 
right  of,  by  legal  adviser,  Dr.  M.  O.  Hudson,  211. 

- right  of  interpreted  by  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (Italy),  85. 

Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  report,  minority,  by  Mr.  Rowell 
(Canada)  on  admission  of  Finland  and  interpretation  of  art.  '387,  treaty  of 
peace,  text  209;  debated  by  Dr.  Espil  (Argentina),  87;  Mr.  Fraipont  (Bel¬ 
gium),  86;  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  78,  79;  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  78. 

General  conference:  Draft  convention  on  employment  of  women  before  and 
after  childbirth  voted  on  by  record  vote  and  agreed  to,  189:  text  in  full,  259. 

- —  draft  convention  limiting  the  hours  of  work  in  industrial  undertakings 

to  8  in  the  day  and  48  in  the  week,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to,  186; 
text  in  full,  256. 

- draft  convention  concerning  employment  of  women  during  the  night, 

voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to;  text  in  full,  260. 


NTERNATIONAL  LABOR  ORGANIZATION,  recommendation  concerning 
the  application  of  the  Bern  Convention  of  1906,  on  the  prohibition  of  the 
use  of  white  phosphorus  in  the  manufacture  of  matches,  voted  on  by  record 
vote,  agreed  to,  183;  text  in  full,  264. 

- recommendation  concerning  the  prevention  of  anthrax,  voted  on  by 

record  vote,  agreed  to,  180;  text  in  full,  261. 

- recommendation  concerning  establishment  of  public  health  services, 

voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to,  181;  text  in  full,  262. 

- recommendation  concerning  protection  of  women  and  children  against 

lead  poisoning,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to,  179;  text  in  full,  262. 

INTERNATIONAL  TRADES  UNION  CONFERENCE,  1917,  OCT.  4  BERN. 
Resolution  7,  protection  of  child  and  juvenile  labor,  reference  to,  Mr.  Baldesi 
(Italy),  97. 

INTERPRETERS.  Ruling  to  facilitate  work  of,  16. 

IRIGOYEN,  HIPOLITO,  President  of  Argentina. 

Tribute  to  by  Dr.  Varela  (Uruguay),  112. 

ITALY. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Baroni  (Comm.  E.),  member  of  commission  on  em¬ 
ployment  of  children,  247;  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  women, 
39j  243;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234;  member  of  com¬ 
mission  on  unhealthy  processes,  252;  member  of  committee  of  selection. 
205. 

- Quartieri  (F.),  member  of  committee  of  selection,  30. 

Delegates:  Government;  Bernardi  (A.),  member  of  commission  on  special 
countries,  as  substitute  for  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches,  229. 

- Casartelli-Cabrini  (Mrs.  L.),  member  of  commission  on  employment 

of  women,  39,  243. 

- Fasolato  (G.),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247; 

member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  252. 

- Mayor  des  Planches  (Baron),  member  of  commission  on  special  coun¬ 
tries,  229. 

- Palma,  Castiglione  (Dr.  G.),  di,  member  of  committee  of  selection,  29, 

205;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Baldesi  (G.),  member  of  commission  on  applications 
for  admission,  208;  member  of  commission  on  special  countries,  229;  member 
of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

- Sacco  (Dr.  M.),  member  of  commission  on  special  countries,  as  substi¬ 
tute  for  Mr.  Baldesi,  229. 

Forty-eight  hour  week:  Steel  industry;  adopted  May,  1919,  53. 

International  Labor  Office:  Representation  on  governing  body  of,  1314. 
National  Institute  for  Placement  and  for  Insurance  against  Unemployment 
memorandum  on  administration  of,  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy),  242. 
Shiftsystem:  Agreement  between  Italian  Federation  of  Labor  and  employers 
for  adoption  of  in  cotton  and  textileindustries;  text  of,  103. 

JAPAN. 

Child  labor:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  consideration  given 
to,  remarks  by  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  (Great  Britainl,  93. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Hasegawa  (Dr.  S.),  member  of  commission  on  unem¬ 
ployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  S.  Muto,  234. 

— - Muto  (Mr.  Sanji),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  women, 

39,  243;  member  of  committee  of  selection,  30,  205;  member  of  commission 
on  special  countries,  229;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234; 
member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  252. 

Delegates,  Government:  Kamada  (E.),  member  of  commission  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women,  39,  243. 

— - - Oka  (Dr.  M.), member  of  commission  on  special  countries,  229;  member 

of  committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

— - Uyeda  (Dr.  T.),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Domae  (M.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment, 
as  substitute  for  Mr.  Masumoto,  234. 

■ - Masumoto  (U.),  appointment  of  protested:  report  of  committee  on  cre¬ 

dentials,  306:  member  commission  on  employment  of  women,  243;  mem¬ 
ber  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

- - protest  by  workers’  delegates  to  conference  against  methods  pur¬ 
sued  by  Japanese  Government  in  selecting  its  labor  representative,  52. 

- Muto  (Shiehiro),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children. 

247. 

Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries:  modifications  of  raft  con¬ 
vention  dealing  with  Japan,  voted  on,  carried,  167;  text  of  modifications,  230. 

- - — — -  recommends  exemption  of  Japan  from  application  of  Art.  405,  of 

Treaty  of  Peace,  158. 

- report  as  applied  to  Japan,  motions  by  Oudegeest  |Jouhaux|, 

voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost  166;  text  in  full  of  majority  report,  230;  minority 
report,  232. 

- — -  report  as  applied  to  Japan  debated  in  opposition  Mr.  Mertens 

(Belgium),  162;  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  163;  Mr.  Oudegeest  (Netherlands) 
162;  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  164;  Mr.  Masumato  (Japan),  159;  in  favor  Dr. 
Kamada  (Japan),  159;  Dr.  Oka  (Japan),  164. 

International  labor  office:  Representation  on  governing  body  of,  13, 14. 

Right  of  organization:  Prohibition  of  in  Japan  in  opposition  to  fundamental 
spirit  of  International  Labor  Conference,  52. 

JASTRZEBOWSKI,  MIECZYSLAW  (of  Poland,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 
Attendance:  Sessions  of,  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  fl5),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  114. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Zagleniczny 
229. 

JOSHl,  NARAYAN  MALHAR  (of  India,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29,  (12)  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(51,  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17), 
123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146:  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (21),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Committee  on  applications  for  admission,  as  provisional  substitute 
for  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States),  31,  208. 

- commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

Motions:  Commission  on  special  coimtries,  amendment  to  the  report  of  the 
commission  concerning  India,  267. 

Remarks:  Child  lalxjr  in  India,  remarks  in  support  of  British  workers'  (Bond- 
field)  amendment  to  the  draft  convention  of  commission  on  employment 
of  children,  95. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  regarding  motion  for  adoption  of  report 

in  so  far  as  latter  applies  to  India,  168. 

JOUHAUX,  LEON  (of  France,  workers’  delegate). 

Appointment  of  protested;  report  of  commission  on  credentials,  206. 

Presides  at  nineteenth  session,  131. 

Proposal  to  committee  of  selection  relative  to  exception  of  provisions  for  agri¬ 
cultural  and  maritime  labor  from  hours  of  work  convention;  text  and  action 
taken,  205. 


INDEX. 


291 


JOUHAUX,  I. EON— Continued. 

Vice  president  for  workers’  group  of  conference,  chosen  unanimously,  29. 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 

(5) , 33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6(8),  56;  Nov.  7(9),  67;  Nov.  10(10), 
77:  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.. 
29  (26),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  37,  247. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

- nominated  workers’  member  of  governing  body  of  international  labor 

office, 131. 

Motions:  Application  of  principle  of  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  in  Japan 
not  later  than  Jan.  1,  1922,  approved  by  conference,  163,  268;  voted  on  by 
record  vote,  lost,  166. 

- eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  to  close  debate  on  draft  convention 

of  organizing  committee,  49. 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention  amendment  to  motion  of  Mr. 

Barnes  (Great  Britain),  43;  voted  on,  lost,  49. 

-  German  and  Austrian  delegations,  steps  necessarv  for  transportation 

of,  265. 

- hours  of  work  draft  convention,  amendment  to  title  of  convention,  268. 

- protection  of  wage  standards  of  workers,  joint  motion  with  Mr.  Baldesi 

(Italy),  128;  voted  on,  carried,  170;  text  of,  267. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  Germany  and  Austria  to  International  Labor  Organi¬ 
zation,  reply  to  Mr.  Guerin  (France),  23,  24. 

- criticism  of  press  construction  upon  vote  of  conference  on  8-hour  day 

and  48-hour  week,  51. 

- Argentine  workers’  delegate,  protest  against  admission  of,  110. 

-  commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention,  concerning 

employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  art.  2,  amendment  ex¬ 
tending  provisions  to  women  of  all  ages  and  nationalities,  175. 

- art.  4,  in  support  of  his  amendment,  175;  objection  to  explana¬ 
tion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain)  of  his  ruling  on  amendment,  180. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  opposed  to  recommendations  of  re¬ 
port  exempting  Japan  from  aoplication  of  principle  of  8-hour  day;  support- 
ingmotion  of  Mr.  Oudegcest  (Netherlands),  163. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  drait  convention,  motion  against  reduc¬ 
tion  in  wages  by  reason  of  enforcement  of  8-hour  da’-  and  48-hour  week,  128. 
- urges  vote  for;  place  of  convention  in  international  labor  legisla¬ 
tion,  122. 

- art.  1  ( d )  opposed  to  amendment  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  119. 

- - art.  2,  urging  consideration  of  amendment  by  Mr.  Baldesi 

(Italy)  upon  convention,  125. 

- art.  4,  closure  criticized,  126. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  draft  recommendation,  No.  3,  unem¬ 
ployment  insurance;  urges  adoption  of  recommendation,  149. 

- 1 - draft  resolution.  No.  4,  defense  of  resolution  as  expressing  inter¬ 
national  spirit  and  not  the  exploitation  of  new  countries,  153. 

- report,  minority,  supported.  140. 

- - committee  of  selection,  distinction  in  selection  of  members  of,  29. 

- - organizing  committee’s  report;  temporary  withdrawal  of  amendment  of 

Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy)  to  point  16  suggested,  20. 

- organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work;  workers’  pro¬ 
posals  on  motion  of  Mr  Barnes  (Great  Britain);  relation  of  labor  to  produc¬ 
tion,  etc. 

- on  his  motion  to  close  debate,  49. 

- submitting  workers’  delegates’  amendment,  59-61. 

- on  motion  of  Mr  Fontaine  (France)  and  in  reply  to  Mr.  Guerin 

(France),  47. 

- relative  to  closure  of  debate,  71. 

- in  favor  of  adjournment  of  discussion  of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes 

(Great  Britain),  38. 

Resolutions:  Protection  of  wage  standards,  presented  jointly  with  Mr.  Baldesi 
(Italy)  and  appended  to  final  report  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  pre¬ 
sented,  128;  voted  on  and  carried,  170;  text  of  as  submitted,  267;  as  adopted, 
276. 

JULIN ,  ARMAND  (of  Belgium,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov. 
26(20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24), 
187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment  as  substitute  for  T.evie,  38,  233. 

JUSTIZ,  CARLOS  CARRERA.  See  Carrera  Justiz  (Carlos). 

KAMADA,  EIKICHI  {of  Japan,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19:  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4 

(6) ,  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12 
(11),  85;  Nov  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17), 
123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  041. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  Japan’s  adherence  to  provisions  of  Bern  convention, 
opposed  to  Baldesi  and  Guerin  amendments,  in  favor  of  adoption  of  original 
report,  106. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  in  favor  of  recommendations  of  report 

exempting  Japan  from  application  of  principle  of  S-hour  day,  159. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  minority  report  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  signed  by,  245. 

KARA  VON  GSE,  PHYA  PRABHA  (of  Siam,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  0,2)19;  Oct. 30 (3), 28;  Oct. 31  (4), 30; Nov. 3 (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), -77; 
Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  20  (15).  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24 
(17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147:  Nov.  26  (21), 
157:  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

KERSHAW,  LOUIS  JAMES  (of  India,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1,  2),  19;  Oct. 30  (3),  28;  Oct. 31  (4), 30;  Nov.  4  (6), 
40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10)  77;  Nov.  12  (11), 
85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123; 
Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov. 
28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

- commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

- - commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

Motions:  commission  on  special  countries,  report  of,  referred  to  conference  as  a 
whole,  voted  on,  carried,  169. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unemployment,  draft  resolution  No  2,  procedure 
during  vote  on  resolution,  150. 

— - committee  on  unhealthy  processes,  questions  ruling  on  procedure  for 

disposition  of  report  of,  99,  101 . 

- organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  inquiry 

as  to  intent  of  motion  of  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States),  concerning  eastern 
eountfies.  48. 


KIGA,  DR.  KANJI  {of  Japan,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  21  (16),  114. 

KJELSBERG,  MRS.  BETZY  {of  Norway,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 
Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  26  (20),  146. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  night  work  in  Norway,  103. 

KOCH,  SENATOR  R.  G.  HALFRED  VON  {of  Sweden,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30:  Nov,  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77, 
Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24, 

(17) ,  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  26  (21) 
157:  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Motions:  Annual  vacation  for  employees,  question  to  be  included  in  agenda 
for  next  conference,  271. 

- employment  of  children  draft  convention  on  employment  of  children  at 

night,  art  2  (a),  amendment,  with  provision  against  possible  suspension  of 
convention,  269. 

— - hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  1,  revision  by  next  conference  of 

list  of  industries  enumerated  in,  271.  ' 

- hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  4-6,  amendments,  267. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  Finland  to  International  Labor  Organization,  report 
of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy)  supported,  82. 

- 8-hour  day  law  of  Sweden  effective  Jan.  1,  1920,  55. 

- commission  on  hours  of  labor  draft  convention,  art.  1  {d),  supporting 

amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  (South  Africa)  to  include  inland  navigation,  117. 

KRIZ,  A.  {of  Czechoslovakia,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  27  (22),  107. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Hodacz,  234. 

KLTNHARDT,  T.  E.  {of  San  Domingo). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  19  (14),  100. 

KUYPER,  MISS  HENRIETTE  {of  The  Netherlands,  adviser  to  Government  dele¬ 
gates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

LABOR  CONFERENCES,  priority  of,  42 

LABOR  COUNCIL  OF  SWEDEN,  remarks  on  operation  of,  Senator  von  Koch 
(Sweden),  55. 

LABOR  LEGISLATION,  international:  Le  Grand’s  idea,  42. 

Switzerland:  Remarks  of  Dr.  Rtifenacht,  Swiss  Government  delegate,  42. 
Netherlands;  Provisions  of  labor  law  effective  Jan.,  1920,  Mgr.  Nolens  (Nether¬ 
lands),  69. 

LABOR  PARTICIPATION  IN  MANAGEMENT  OF  PRODUCTION.  Labor 
policy  of  international  labor  office  to  recognize,  motion  by  Mr.  Largo  Caballero 
(Spain),  272. 

LABOR  REPRESENTATIVES.  See  Workers’  Delegates. 

LABOR  STATISTICS  BUREAU.  Switzerland.  Law  creating  bureau  sub¬ 
mitted  for  referendum,  42. 

United  States  {see  Meeker,  Dr.  Royal). 

LACERDA,  ALVARO  DE  (of  Portugal,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11).  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91; 
Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov. 
24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26 
(21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

LAMPRINOPOULOS,  TIMOLEON  (of  Greece,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1,2),  19;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov. 
19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25 

(18) ,  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22), 
167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

LAND  TENURE.  Private  ownership  cause  of  unemployment;  Sexton’s  pro¬ 
posed  remedy  omitted  from  report  of  commission  on  unemployment;  re¬ 
marks  by  Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (Canada),  139. 

LARGO  CABALLERO,  FRANCISCO  (of  Spain,  workers’ delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12).  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (  20),  147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  170; 
Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- - committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

Motion:  Agricultural  labor  on  agenda  of  next  conference,  272. 

-  Internationa]  labor  office,  appointment  of  representatives  of,  in  each 

country,  271. 

- labor  policy  of  international  labor  office  to  be  included  in  program  of 

next  conference,  suggested  bases  of  policy,  272. 

LATIN  AMERICAN  COUNTRIES.  Protest  against  insufficient  representation 
of  on  governing  body  of  international  labor  office  presented  by  Mr.  Carrera 
Justiz  (Cuba),  131;  concurred  in  Dr.  Cueva  Garcia  (Ecuador),  131;  closure 
of  debate  voted,  132. 

LATOUR.  FRANCISCO  SANCHEZ.  See  Sanchez  Latour  (Francisco). 

LAVONIUS,  ROBERT  (of  Finland,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  130; 
Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  29  (25),  187; 
Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

LAZARD,  MAX  (of  France,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  rf  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33:  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  .50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  19  (14);  100,  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17), 
123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  20  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

- committee  on  drafting,  92. 

Motions:  International  labor  office  instructed  to  distribute  copies  of  draft 
conventions  adopted  by  conference  to  ah  States  not  members  of  International 
Labor  Organization,  on  behalf  of  drafting  committee,  191. 

- vocational  training,  270. 

Remarks:  Agenda  of  International  I  abor  Conference  of  1920, 198. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention;  reply  to  Mr.  Armen- 

teros  y  Cardenas  (Cuba),  requesting  explanation  of  intent  of  commission,  144. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention,  art.  2  (employment 

exchanges),  reply  to  Mr.  Row-ell  (Canada),  144. 

-  commission  on  unemployment  draft  recommendations,  art.  2  (re¬ 
cruiting  of  foreign  workers),  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  146;  to  Mr.  Fon¬ 
taine  (France),  146. 

- - commission  on  unemployment,  drait  convention  on  reciprocity  of 

foreign  workers:  desires  unanimity  on  compromise  motion  of  Baron  di 
Palma  Castiglione  (Italy),  154 


292 


INDEX. 


LAZARD,  MAX — Continued. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  resolution  No.  2,  procedure 
during  vote  on  resolution,  150. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  report  of,  132. 

Reports:  Commission  on  unemployment,  132. 

LEAD  POISONING.  See  Plumbism. 

LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS.  Conference  and  League  of  Nations,  43. 

Membership  in  League  of  Nations  and  International  Labor  Organization, 
relation  of,  remarks,  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  79. 

Dutch  delegation  will  vote  against  any  motion  not  in  harmony  with  stipula¬ 
tions  of;  Mgr.  Nolens  (Netherlands)  remarks,  43. 

LEFEVRE,  JOSE  E.  (of  Panama,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

LEGGE,  I)R.  T.  M.  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  19  (14),  100. 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  explanation  of  report  of,  98. 
Reports:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  presented,  98. 

LE  GRAND,  DANIEL.  International  labor  legislation  suggested  by,  42. 

LENOIR,  M.  (of  France). 

M c  mber:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  M.  Jouhaux, 
39, 247. 

LETELLIER,  MME.  G.  (of  France,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  shift  system  applied  to  women  labor;  opposed 
to  Mr.  Baldesi’s  (Italy)  motion,  105. 

LEVERHULME,  LORD,  referred  to,  103. 

LEVIE,  MICHEL  (of  Belgium,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10)  77. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  233. 

LIAN,  OLE  (Norway). 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

LINDQUIST,  A.  HERMAN  (of  Sweden,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  2S;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13 
(12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16), 
114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (  20),  147; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov. 
29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Committee  on  of  selection,  30,  205. 

- nominated  workers’  member  of  goveming.body  of  international  labor 

office,  131. 

LIBERTY  OF  THE  PRESS.  Ecuador;  remarks,  Dr.  Garcia  (Ecuador),  52. 

United  States;  remarks,  president  of  the  conference  (Wilson,  United  States),  51. 

LIBRARY  UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  LABOR,  use  of  extended 
to  delegates,  51. 

LOGGING  INDUSTRY.  See  Lumber  and  Logging  Industry. 

LOVEIRA  Y  CHIRINO,  CARLOS  (of  Cuba,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 
Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

LUBIN,  DAVID.  Study  of  factors  affecting  price  fixing  on  staples  of  agriculture, 
referred  to,  135. 

LUMBER  AND  LOGGING  INDUSTRY.  Classification  of  as  agriculture  or 
industry;  remarks,  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  122;  M.  Fontaine  (France),  122. 

LUND,  JUDGE  I.  M.  (of  Norway,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct. 31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov. 
20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25 
(19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23), 
176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

LUXEMBURG,  admission  of  to  International  Labor  Conference,  resolution  of  con¬ 
ference,  276. 

- report  of  commission  on  applications  for  admission,  minority  report 

presented  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  78;  text  in  full,  212. 

- requested  by  telegram  and  favorably  recommended,  114. 

Council  of  League  of  Nations,  letter  of  October,  1919,  referred  to,  21,  27. 

MacARTHUR,  MISS  MARY  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  243. 

- commission  on  minimum  age  of  employment  and  night  workfor  children 

(proxy  member  for  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning),  39. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women;  draft  convention  concerning 
employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth;  opposed  to  minority 
amendment  to  art.  5, 172. 

- art.  8,  amendment  to  delete  article,  177;  voted  on,  lost,  178. 

.  - arts.  7-8,  in  favor  of  proposal  to  vote  on  articles  without  debate,  177. 

McCORMICK,  MRS.  MEDILL,  reception  by,  abandoned,  78. 

MADSEN,  C.  F.  (of  Denmark,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8), 
56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19 
(14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (20), 
116;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

MAGINNESS,  G.  S.  (oj  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

MAHAIM,  ERNEST  (oj  Belgium,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30(3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3(5), 
33,  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
7/;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Belgium’s  representative  on  organizing  committee,  13. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

-  commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

- committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

- committee  on  drafting,  92. 

Motions:  Closure  of  debate  on  representation  of  Latin  American  countries  in 
governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  132. 


MAHAIM,  ERNEST— Continued. 

Motions:  Governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  closure  of  debate  on.  196; 
seconded  by  Mr.  Edstrom  (Sweden),  196;  voted  on,  carried,  197. 

- hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  2,  amendment  to,  267. 

Remarks:  Government  delegate  on  credentials  committee,  Sir  Malcom  Dele- 

.  vingne  proposed,  27. 

- nomination  of  vice  president  for  Governments  represented,  seconded,  29. 

- - organizing  committee-’s  resolution onadmission  of  Germany  and  Austria, 

in  favor,  26. 

— -  Portugal’s  representation  in  conference;  reply  to  Mr.  Barbosa  (Portu¬ 

gal),  108. 

— - eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  commit  tee  draltcon  vention: 

proposal  to  combine  propositions  of  Messrs.  Barnes  and  Marjoribanks  (Great 
Britain),  46. 

Reports:  Commission  on  standing  orders  presented,  107;  text,  213. 

MAJEROVA,  MME.  MARIE  STIVINOVA.  See  Stivinova  Majerova,  Mme. 
Marie. 

MANNIO,  JUDGE  NIILO  A.  (of  Finland,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;. 
Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19;,  130;  Nov„ 
26  (  20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  2s 
(25),  201. 

MARINO  PEREZ,  LUIS  (of  Cuba,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Representative  for  Mr.  Carrera  Justiz,  at  tenth  session,  67. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov. 
24  (17),  123. 

Motions:  Non-Government  delegates,  procedure  in  nomination  of  to  be  studied 
by  international  labor  office,  109. 

Remarks:  Non-Government  delegates,  nomination  of,  109. 

MARIN,  JOSE  GASCON.  See  Gascon  Marin  (Jose). 

MARITIME  OCCUPATIONS.  Hours  of  labor  on  inland  waters  (see  Inland  navi¬ 
gation). 

Proposal  of  M.  Jouhaux  (France,  workers);  text  and  action  taken  by  committee 
of  selection,  205. 

MARJORIBANKS,  D.  S.  (of  Great  Britain,  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  3  (4),  30, 
Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10(10),  77; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 
Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

. - commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

■  - committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

Motions:  Adjournment  until  Mr.  Barnes's  motion  for  48-hour  week  shall  be 
printed,  37. 

Remarks:  Committee  meeting  arrangements  objected  to,  39. 

-  commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  concerning 

employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  in  support  of  minority 
report,  174. 

- - eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  organizing  committee  draft  conven¬ 
tion;  reply  to  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States),  47:  supporting  arguments  of 
employers'  delegates,  Messrs.  Parsons  (Canada)  and  Guerin  ( France),  against 
general  reductions  in  working  hours,  66;  presenting  employers'  alternative 
proposal,  40;  in  favor  of  adjournment  to  gain  time  for  consideration  of  motion 
of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

-  employers’  delegate  on  credentials  committee,  M.  Carlier  (Belgium) 

proposed,  27. 

- report  of  organizing  committee,  16. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  minority  report  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  signed  by,  245. 

MARSHALL,  Hon.  THOMAS  R.  (  Vice  President  of  the  United  States  of  America). 
See  Vice  President  of  the  United  States. 

MARTEL,  ARTHUR  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  worker’s  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  26  (20),  146. 

MASUMOTO,  UHEI  (of  Japan,  workers’  delegate). 

Appointment  of  protested;  report  of  commission  on  credentials,  206. 

A  /tendance: Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30,  (3)  28;  Nov.  3  (51,  33:  Nov  4  (6) 
40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67:  Nov.  10  (10),  77:  Nov.  21  (16)’ 
114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146: 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23).  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  kov' 
29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  243. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  special  countries,  opposed  to  recommendations  of 
report  exemption  Japan  from  application  of  principle  of  8-hour  dav,  159. 
Statement:  Labor  conditions  in  Japan;  Government  policy  on  shorter  work-day; 
art.  17  of  police  regulations,  160. 

MATCH  INDUSTRY.  See  White  Phosphorus. 

MATERNITY  PROTECTION. 

Commission  on  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  on  ma¬ 
ternity  benefits,  and  on  night  work  for  women,  appointed,  39. 

■  - drafting  committee’s  text  to  serve  as  text  for  vote  proposed  by  Mr. 

Hudson,  legal  adviser,  186;  discussed  M.  Carlier  (Belgium:.  186;  Rowell 
(Canada),  186. 

- art.  1  (definition  of  industrial  undertakings),  amendment  presented  by 

Mr.  Gascon  Marin  (Spain)  to  include  commercial  undertakings,  174;  debated 
adversely  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain),  174;  voted  on,  carried,  174;  amendment, 
remarks  by  Mr.  Edstrom  (Sweden)  and  Mr.  Gascon  Marin  (Spain),  on 
procedure  bn  vote  of,  189;  amendment  as  to  inclusion  of  words  "industry, 
commerce,  and  agriculture,”  voted  on  by  record  vote,  lost.  189;  amendment 
as  to  inclusion  of  words  ‘‘industry  ana  commerce,"  voted  on  by  record 
vote,  carried,  189;  (5)  manufacturing  industries,  amendment  debated  by  Mr. 
Rowell  (Canada),  175;  voted  on,  lo;t,  175;  amendment  of  Messrs.  Posada  and 
Gascon  Marin  (Spain),  text  of,  269. 

- art.  2  (definition  of  term  "woman”  and  "child”  as  used  in  convention), 

amendment  by  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  extending  provisions  to  women  of  all 
ages  and  nationalities,  175;  debited  by  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  opposed, 
175;  voted  on,  carried,  175;  amendment  to  extend  protection  provided  in 
article  tocommercial  undertakings,  debated  in  favor  Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione 
(Italy),  175;  opposed,  Mr.  Ed.trom  (Sweden),  17o;  amendment  of  Messrs. 
Posada  and  Gascon  Marin  (SpaLO,  text  of,  269. 

- art.  3  (convention  not  to  apply  to  industrial  undertakings  in  which 

members  of  same  family  only  are  employed),  deletion  moved  by  Messrs. 
Posada  and  Gascon  Marin  (Spain),  175;  voted  on,  lost,  175;  amendment  of 
Messrs.  Posada  and  Gascon  Marin  (Spain),  text  of,  269;  (c)  amendment  as  to 
deletion  of  words  "  or  by  means  of  a  system  of  insurance  ’  voted  on  by  record 
vote,  lost,  190. 


INDEX. 


293 


MATERNITY  PROTECTION— Continued. 

Commission  on  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  on  ma¬ 
ternity  benefits,  and  on  night  work  for  women,  art.  4  (women  not  to  be 
employed  in  industrial  establishments  for  six  weeks  following  confinement), 
amendment,  M.  Jouhaux  (France),  175,  269,  voted  on,  carried,  176;  amend¬ 
ment,  Jouh 'ux  (France),  inquiry  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain)  as  to  ruling 
of  chair  on  180;  explanation  by  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain)  of  his  ruling, 
ISO;  objects  n,  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  to  explanation,  180. 

- art.  6  (prohibiting  dismissal  of  working  women  for  causes  arising  out  of 

pregnancy),  voted  on,  carried,  176. 

- art.  7  (maternity  benefits),  amendment,  176;  debated,  Mr.  Rowell 

(Canada),  176;  agreed  to,  177;  amendment  by  Messrs.  Posada  and  Gascon 
Marin  (Spain),  inserting  the  word  “compulsory”  before  insurance,  voted 
on,  lost,  177;  text  of,  269;  amendment  of  Messrs.’  Posada  and  Gascon  Marin 
(Spain),  making  benefits  determinable  by  number  of  children,  voted  on, 
lost,  177. 

- arts.  7-8,  proposal  to  vote  on  articles  without  debate;  remarks,  Miss 

MacArthur  (Great  Britain),  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  177;  voted  on,  carried, 
177. 

- art.  8,  agreed  to,  178. 

- art.  8,  amendment  to  delete  article,  Miss  MacArthur  (Great  Britain), 

voted  on,  lost,  178. 

- arts.  1-8,  as  amended,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to,  191;  as 

amended,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  carried,  191;  as  adopted  by  conference, 
259;  text  of,  244. 

—  - motion  No.  2,  recommending  extension,  with  certain  benefits,  of  period 

of  six  weeks’  absence  after  confinement,  provided  by  art.  4  of  draft  conven¬ 
tion,  text,  245;  voted  on,  carried,  178. 

- report  on  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  majority 

report  presented  by  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain),  171;  text  of  report,  244; 
minority  report,  agreeing  with  majority  report  with  exception  only  of  art.  5, 
proposing  to  shorten  period  named  from  six  to  four  weeks,  presented  by  Mr. 
Edstrom  (Sweden),  172;  debated  in  favor,  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain), 
174;  Mr.  Paus  (Norway),  176;  Miss  Hesselgren  (Sweden),  173;  opposed,  Miss 
MacArthur  (Great  Britain),  172;  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy),  174; 
Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  173,  176;  text  of  report,  245. 

- resolution  providing  for  additional  protection,  276. 

•  - organizing  committee,  conclusion  No.  2,  prohibition  of  employment  of 

women  in  factories  for  at  least  four  weeks  after  childbirth,  245. 

India:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  motion  No.  1,  requesting  Indian 
Government  to  study  question  and  to  report  at  next  conference,  text,  245; 
voted  on,  carried,  178. 

- International  Labor  Conference,  resolution  inviting  Government  of 

India  to  make  study  of,  276. 

MAYOR  DES  PLANCHfiS,  Baron  ( of  Italy),  Government  delegate. 

National  Institute  for  Placement  and  for  insurance  against  unemployment, 
memorandum  on  administration  of,  242. 

Presides  at  fifteenth  session,  100;  sixteenth  session,  107;  twentieth  session,  139. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10).  77; 
Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13).  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov. 
20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17).  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19), 
138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  2S  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- Commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

Motions:  Organizing  committee’s  resolution  on  admission  of  Germany  and 
Austria  amended,  24;  amendment  withdrawn,  26. 

•  - Secretary  general  to  issue  daily  communique  to  press;  seconded  by  Dr. 

Cueva  Garcia  (Ecuador),  51;  withdrawn,  52. 

- Thanks  to  United  States  for  convening  conference,  12. 

■  - United  States  workers’  and  employers’  organizations  invited  to  send 

delegates,  12. 

- Vocational  training,  270. 

Nominations:  Vice  president  for  Governments  represented,  Mr.  Barnes  (Great 
Britain),  nominated,  29. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  Germany  and  Austria,  in  favor,  24. 

- - agenda  of  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920,  198. 

- appreciation  of  hospitality  extended  by  Pan  American  Union,  reply 

to  Dr.  John  Barrett,  200. 

■  - Commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  concerning 

employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth:  in  support  of  amendment 
of  Judge  Castberg  (Norway)  to  minority  amendment  of  art.  5  of  draft  con¬ 
vention,  174. 

—  - delegate  for  Czecho-Slovakia  on  commission  of  selection,  29. 

- invitation  extended  by  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  United  States  to  visit 

Mount  Vernon  acknowledged,  59. 

—  - organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  eight-hour  day,  supporting 

motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  with  exception  of  its  disregard  of  agri¬ 
cultural  classes,  36. 

- eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee  draft  conven¬ 
tion;  for  referring  amendments  of  Messrs.  Barnes  and  Marjoribanks  to  a  com¬ 
mission,  48. 

—  -  reply  to  address  of  welcome,  12. 

-  secretary  general  to  issue  daily  communique,  to  press,  51. 

- urges  hastening  of  labors  of  conference,  32. 

MEEKER,  DR.  ROYAL  ( Commissioner  of  Labor  Statistics,  United  States  Department 
of  Labor). 

Monthly  Labor  Review  distributed  to  delegates,  and  invitation  to  use  library 
of  Department  of  Labor  extended  by;  vote  of  thanks  to,  51. 

MELLO  FRANCO,  DR.  AFRANIO  DE  (of  Brazil,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  ol  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (20),  146; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention,  arts.  2-3,  inap¬ 
plicable  to  Brazil;  provisions  covered  by  Brazilian  law  and  constitution,  145. 

—  - draft  resolution  No.  4,  opposed  to  resolution  as  contrary  to  vital  in¬ 

terests  of  Latin- American  countries,  152. 

- observations  on  the  conference,  the  relation  of  Latin  America  in  general 

and  Brazil  in  particular  on  certain  of  its  decisions,  191 . 

MERCURY.  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  report,  253;  reference  to  report 
of  M.  Boulin  (France),  99;  Dr.  Legge  (Great  Britain),  98. 

MERRICK,  J.  G.  ( of  Canada,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  ol  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

MERTENS.  CORNEILLE  (of  Belgium,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov. 
10(10),  77;  Nov.  19(14).  100;  Nov.  20(15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17), 
123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

-  commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 


.  MERTENP,  CORNEILLE— Continued. 

Member:  commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

- committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

M  tions:  Application  of  principle  of  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  in  Japan 
not  later  than  Jan.  1,  1922,  approved  by  conference,  163, 268:  voted  on  by 
record  vote: lost,  166. 

- -  German  and  Austrian  delegations,  steps  necessary  for  transportation  of, 

265. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  special  countries  with  reference  to  hours  ol  work, 
opposed  to  recommendations  of  report  exempting  Japan  from  application  of 
principle  of  8-hour  day,  162. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  recommendation  No.  3  (unem¬ 
ployment  insurance),  unanimous  vote  on  recommendation  urged,  149. 

- Japane'e  delegates,  admission  of  opposed  by  workers’  delegates,  52. 

- organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  8-hour  day  and  48-houi 

week,  opposed  to  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne’s  motion  for  closure,  71. 

— - workers’  delegate  on  credentials  committee,  Mr.  Oudegeest  (Nether¬ 

lands),  proposed,  27. 

MEXICO. 

Admission  of  to  International  Labor  Conference,  resolution  of  conference,  276. 

- committee  on  applications  for  admission,  report  of  minority  by  Mr. 

Rowell  (Canada),  adverse  to,  presented,  78;  text,  212. 

Invitation  to  conference,  motion  of  Dr.  Elizalde  (Ecuador)  and  My.  Nieto 
del  Rio  (Chile),  265. 

Invitation  to  attend  conference,  motion  of  Dr.  Elizalde  (Fcuador)  and  Mr. 
Nieto  del  Rio  (Chile),  26,265;  seconded,  Dr.  Cueva  Garcia  (Ecuador),  26; 
ruled  out  of  order,  26;  report  of  minority  of  commission  on  applications  for 
admission  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  212. 

MIALL,  DR.  S.  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  21  (16),  114. 

Member:  Commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

Motions:  Appointment  of  advisory  committee  to  health  section  ofinternational 
labor  office,  introduced,  100,  270;  discussed,  101;  voted  on,  carried  unani¬ 
mously,  101. 

Remarks:  Appointment  of  advisory  committee  to  health  section  of  interna¬ 
tional  labor  office,  on  motion  for,  100 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  during  consideration  of  report  of, 

opposed  to  hasty  legislation  relative  to  anthrax. 

MICHAESCO,  GREGOIRE  (of  Roumania,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  October  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3), 28;  Oct.  31(4)30;  Nov.3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  57;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100- 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov. 
25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157:  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23), 
176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Motions:  Organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  applica¬ 
tion  of  to  Roumania,  248. 

MIGRATION  OF  WORKERS. 

Commission  on  unemployment  draft  resolution  No.  3  (migration  of  workers), 
passage  of  voted  on,  carried,  151;  text  of,  237. 

- report  [clause  relating  to  migration  of  workers],  presentation  of,  132;  text 

of,  234. 

International  commission,  resolution  of  International  Labor  Conference  for 
creation  of  commission  to  regulate,  276. 

Study  of,  resolution  of  International  Labor  Conference  for  establishment  of 
special  section  in  international  labor  office,  276. 

MILITARY  INTERVENTION  IN  LABOR  CONFLICTS.  Principle  of,  as  one 
of  bases  of  labor  policy  of  international  labor  office  to  be  determined  at  next 
conference,  motion  of  Mr.  Largo  Caballero  (Spain),  272. 

MINIMUM  WAGES.  Paraguayan  delegates’  motion  for  establishment  of  a  com¬ 
mission  on,  271. 

MOJICA,  ANDRES  (of  Panama,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50:  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov. 
7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91:  Nov.  19  (14), 
100;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 
MONTHLY  LABOR  REVIEW  distributed  to  delegates,  51. 

MOORE,  TOM  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
Motion:  Agenda  of  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920,  to  be  left  to  gov¬ 
erning  body,  198;  seconded,  Mr.  Edstrom  (Sweden),  198;  Judge  Castberg 
(Norway),  i99;  voted  on,  agreed  to,  199. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention;  conflict  of  motion 
of  Messrs.  Jouhaux  (France)  and  Baldesi  (Italy)  with  resolution  appended 
to  final  report  of  commission;  opposed  to  wording  of  resolution;  appeal  for 
unqualified  acceptance  of  report,  129. 

MORAVIA,  CHARLES  (of  Haiti,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

MORENO,  MANUEL  (of  Guatemala,  workers’  delegate). 

Appointment  of  protested;  report  of  commission  on  credentials,  207. 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29,  (1,2),  19;  Oct.,30  (3),  2S;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3,(5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov. 
21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26 
(20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24), 
187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

MORSIER,  DE. 

The  eight-hour  day,  referred  to,  69. 

MOTIONS  PRESENTED  BY  DELEGATES,  265. 

MOUNT  VERNON.  Invitation  to  conference  to  visit,  extended  by  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  United  States,  59. 

MUNIZAGA  VARELA,  GUSTAVO  (of  Chile,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5 
(7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov. 
17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14).  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  25  (19), 
138;  Nov.  26  (20),  176;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

MURRAY,  ALEXANDER  ROBERTSON  (of  India,  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19:  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
A3;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77:  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 

.  Nov.  21  (16),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  27  (22),  168; 

Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  229. 


294 


INDEX. 


MUTO,  SANJI  (of  Japan,  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  ot  Oct.  29  (1, 2),  i9;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6), 
40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11), 
85;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  123; 
Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146:  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38. 

- committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

Motion:  Workers’  pensions,  sick  and  death  benefits  and  education  to  be  in¬ 
cluded  in  agenda  of  next  conference,  272. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  of  draft  convention,  art.  9,  Jouhaux 
amendment  out  of  order,  68. 

MUTO,  SHICHIRO  (of  Japan,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85:  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100. 
Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

Reports:  Commission  on  special  countries,  minority  report,  232. 

NAKAHARA,  DR.  IWASABURO  (of  J apan,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 
Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  13  (12),  90. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  minority  report  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  signed  by,  245. 

NATIONAL  INDUSTRIAL  CONFERENCE,  Ottawa,  Sept.  15-20,  1919.  Un¬ 
employment  insurance,  recommendations  of  conference  outlined;  Mr.  E.  B. 
Robertson  (Canada),  139. 

NATIONALIZATION  OF  INDUSTRY,  commission  on  unemployment,  minor¬ 
ity  report  recommendations  more  far-reaching  than  nationalizing  of  industry; 
remarks,  Mr.  Blomjous  (Netherlands),  135. 

NAVIGATION  (INLAND).  See  Inland  Navigation. 

NAYER  (MAURICE  DE  SMET  DE).  See  Smet  de  Nayer  (Maurice  de). 

NETHERLANDS,  THE,  admission  to  conference,  resolution  of  Council  of  League 
Nations,  15,  16. 

Delegates,  employers’.  Blomjous  (H.),  member  of  commission  for  unemploy¬ 
ment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Verkade,  234. 

- Verkade  (J.  A.  E.),  member  of  commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213; 

member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

Delegates,  Government.  Nolens  (Mgr.  W.  H.),  member  commission  on  hours 
of  work,  77,  222. 

- - van  Thienen  (G.  J.),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  252. 

Delegates,  workers’.  Baas  (G.),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  proe- 
essesj252. 

- Huinink  (S.  Ten  Bokkel),  member  of  commission  on  special  countries, 

as  substitute  for  Mr.  Oudegeest,  229. 

- Oudegeest  (J.),  member  of  commission  on  credentials,  206;  (J.),  member 

of  commission  on  special  countries,  229;  member  of  commission  on  hours  of 
work,  77,  222;  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30,  205;  member  of  com¬ 
mission  on  unemployment,  234. 

- Serrarens  (r.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  as  sub¬ 
stitute  for  Mr.  Oudegeest,  234. 

Labor  law  effective  Jan.  1,  1920,  provisions  of,  remarks,  Mgr.  Nolens  (Neth¬ 
erlands),  69. 

NEUMANN,  S.  (of  Denmark,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6 
(8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90; 
Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17), 123; 
Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  13S;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157; 
Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176:  Nov.  28  (24),  1S7;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
Member:  Committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  Finland  to  International  Labor  Conference  in  favor  of, 
S3. 

NEWSPAPER  OFFICES.  Night  work  in  to  be  prohibited  in  Norway,  104. 

NICARAGUA.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

NIETO  DEL  RIO,  FELIX  (of  Chile,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30,  (3)  28;  Oct.  31,  (4)  30;  Nov. 
7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  .85:  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13), 
92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123; 
Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov. 
28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Motions:  Mexico  to  he  invited  to  conference,  265. 

NIGHT  WORK.  Children  (see  Child  labor). 

Duration  of,  discussed  by  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain),  102;  M.  Guerin  (France), 
104. 

Duration  of  in  Norway,  discussed  by  Judge  Castberg  (Norway)  and  Mrs. 

Kjelsberg  (Norway),  103. 

Women  (see  Woman  labor). 

NOLENS,  MONSIGNOR  W.  H.  (of  The  Netherlands,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33:  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50:  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov. 
10  (10),  77;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92:  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16), 
114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (IS),  130;  Nov.  25,  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21), 
157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187:  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

Motions:  Acceptance  of  resolution  for  admission  of  Germany  and  Austria  to 
International  Labor  Organization,  21,  25. 

- - eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee  draft  conven¬ 
tion,  amendment  relative  to  enforcement  date,  70. 

- hours  of  work,  draft  convention  art.  2,  amendment  to,  267. 

Remarks:  Acknowledgment  of  efforts  of  presiding  officer,  Mr.  Wilson  (United 
States),  and  of  activities  of  three  international  labor  organizations  on  behalf 
of  Government,  200. 

- agenda  for  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920, 199. 

- Baldesi  amendment  to  point  16  of  organizing  committee’s  report,  with¬ 
drawal  suggested,  20. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  Viscount  de  Era’s  remarks  objected  to, 

32. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  recommendation  No.  3  (unemploy¬ 
ment  insurance),  in  favor  of  unanimous  vote  for  recommendation,  150. 

— -  commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of 

treatment  of  foreign  workers,  opposed  to  Italian  amendment,  155. 

- Dutch  delegation  of  all  groups  will  vote  against  any  motion  not  in  har¬ 
mony  wit’’  stipulations  of  l  eague  of  Nations,  43. 

- eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  commission  on  hours  of  work  draft 

convention  art.  I  (d),  opposed  to  amendment  of  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  19. 

- — - organizing  committee’s  draft  convention,  amendment  stipulating 

time  of  enforcement  of  same,  69;  opposed  to  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne’s  mo¬ 
tion  to  close  debate,  66:  in  favor  of  reference  to  a  commission,  75;  supporting 
amendment  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  43. 

- imperative  that  definite  construction  be  put  on  motion  of  Mr. 

Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 


NOLENS,  MONSIGNOR  W.  H.— Continued. 

Remarks:  motion  of  Mr.  Jouhaux  (France)  for  adjournment  on  Oct.  29,  18. 

- -  protection  of  wage  standards  of  works,  supporting  motion  of  Messrs. 

Jouhaux  (France)  and  Paldesi  (Italy),  170. 

- resolution  for  admission  of  Germany  and  Austria  to  International  I.abor 

Organization,  21,  24. 

NORWAY.  Admission  to  conference,  resolution  of  Council  of  League  of  Nations.  16. 
Delegates,  employers’:  Paus,  (G.),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  pro¬ 
cesses,  252;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

Delegates,  Government:  Castberg  (Judge  J.),  member  of  commission  on 
employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Teigen  (J.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment, 
234. 

• - Vidnes  (J.),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 

Forty-eight  hour  week  law  of  July,  1919;  remarks  on  provisions  of,  by  Judge 
Castberg  (Norway),  56. 

Night  work  in,  discussed  by  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  103;  Mrs.  Kjelsberg 
(Norway),  103. 

OCEAN  FREIGHT  RATES.  Relation  of  cost  of  ocean  tonnage  and  distribution 
of  raw  materials  to  unemployment  (see  Unemployment). 

OERSTED,  H.  C.  (of  Denmark,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157. 

OKA,  DR.  MINORU  (of  Japan,  Government  delegate). 

Japan’s  representative  on  organizing  committee,  13. 

Organizing  committee  draft  convention  to  prohibit  the  night  work  of  voung 
persons  employed  in  industry  art.  5,  tentative  amendments,  suggested,  251. 
Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77:  Nov.  12 
(11),  85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18). 
130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

- committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  1,  in  favor  of 
reference  to  international  conference,  119. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  in  favor  of  recommendations  of  report 

exempting  Japan  from  application  of  principle  of  8-hour  day,  164. 

OLD-AGE  PENSIONS.  Agenda  of  next  conference  to  include.'  motion  of  Mr. 
Varela  (Uruguay),  272. 

Uruguay,  text  of  laws  of  Feb.  11  and  Sept.  1,  1919,  272. 

OLIVEIRA  SAMPAIO,  Dr.  (  ESAR  de  (of  Brazil,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  26  (20),  138; 

Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Motions:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  9,  amendment 
to  provide  for  marine  transport  workers,  162. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  9,  amendment 
previously  moved,  ruled  out  of  order,  16'’. 

- Committee  on  special  countries,  in  favor  of  recommendations  of  repoit 

exempting  Brazil  from  application  of  principle  of  8-hour  day,  162. 

ORGANIZATION,  RIGHT  OF.  See  Right  of  Organization. 

ORGANIZING  COMMITTEE.  Draft  convention  to  fix  age  of  admission  of  children 
to  induustrial  employment  at  not  less  than  14  years,  text  of,  249. 

Draft  convention  to  prohibit  night  work  of  young  persons  employed  in  in¬ 
dustry,  arts.  1-6,  text  of,  251;  art.  5,  tentative  amendments  suggested  by 
Dr.  Oka  (Japan),  251. 

Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  draft  convention  (see  Eight-hour  day  and 
48-hour  week). 

Employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  conclusions  of  committee, 
245. 

Night  work  for  women,  conclusion  that  conference  recommend  adhesion  to 
Bern  convention  of  1906,  of  all  States  members  of  the  League,  246. 
Unemployment,  conclusions  of  committee  with  regard  to  second  point  on 
agenda  of  conference,  239. 

Unhealthy  trades,  suggestions  and  recommendations  for  international  action, 
especially  concerning  women  and  children,  254. 

Resolution  for  admission  of  Germany  and  Austria  to  International  Labor 
Organization  introduced,  21;  discussed,  21-25;  amended,  24;  amendment 
withdrawn,  26;  amendment  voted  on  (lost),  26;  resolution  voted  on  (car¬ 
ried),  26. 

Report,  text  of,  12-16;  adoption  of,  motion,  20;  discussion,  19;  in  Spanish, 
remarks,  16-17. 

OR GHIDAN,  CONSTANTIN  (of  Roumania,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30(3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov. 
12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Motion:  Organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  applica¬ 
tion  of  to  Roumania,  268. 

OUDEGEEST,  JAN  (of  The  Netherlands,  workers  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov. 
21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27 
(22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201; 

Member:  Commission  on  credentials,  27,  206. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

- committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

- nominated  workers’  member  of  governing  body  of  international  labor 

office,  131. 

Motions:  Application  of  principle  of  S-hour  day  and  48-hour  week  in  Japan 
not  later  than  Jan.  1,  1922,  approved  by  conference,  163,  218;  voted  on  by 
record  vote  (lost),  166. 

- German  and  Austrian  delegations,  steps  necessary  for  transportation 

of,  265. 

Remarks:  Acknowledgment  of  services  of  presiding  officer,  Mr.  Wilson  (United 
States),  on  behalf  of  workers,  200. 

- Argentine  workers’  delegate,  protest  against  admission  of  Mr.  Balino  to 

conference,  110, 112. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  opposed  to  recommendations  of  report 

exempting  Japan  from  application  of  principle  of  8-hour  day,  162. 

Reports:  Argentine  workers’  delegate,  minority  report  on  admission  of,  207. 

OVERTIME.  British  practice,  remarks  by  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  35. 

Czecho-Slovakia’s  law  of  1919,  remarks  on  provision  of,  Mr.  Tayerle  (Czecho¬ 
slovakia),  55. 

Norway’s  law  of  July,  1919,  remarks  on  provisions  of.  Judge  Castberg  (Norway). 

56. 

Organizing  committee’s  report  on,  228. 

Sweden's  law  of  1920,  remarks  on  provision  of.  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden), 
55. 


INDEX. 


295 


PAASIVUORI,  MATTI  (of  Finland,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance.-  Sessions  of  Nov.  17  (13),  92:  Nov.  19  (14),  100:  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123:  Nov.  25  (IS),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  13S; 
Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  2S  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187; 
Nov.  29  (  25),  201. 

PALMA  (LASTIC^LIONE,  Dr.  G.  DI  (of  Italy,  Government  delegate). 

Proposal  to  committee  of  selection  relative  to  agricultural  labor;  text  and 
action  taken,  205. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19:  Oct.  30  (3),  28:  Oct.  31  (4),  30:  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7),  50:  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov. 
10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90:  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14), 
100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123:  Nov.  25  (18), 
130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138:  Nov.  26  (20).  146:  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22), 
168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187:  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

- committee  of  selection,  29,  205 

- Italian  representative  on  organizing  committee,  13. 

Motiom:  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  amended  to  ad¬ 
mit  foreign  workers  to  benefits  of  laws  of  member  States  by  special  agree¬ 
ments,  143. 

- international  convention  for  protection  of  agricultural  workers  to  be 

submitted  to  conference  of  1920.  198. 

Remarks:  Admission  to  International  Labor  Organization  and  to  International 
Labor  Conference,  right  of  interpreted,  85. 

- eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  organizing  committee’s  draft  con¬ 
vention,  reasons  for  opposing  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy).  76. 

- supporting  workers’  delegates’  proposal  for  reference  to  a  com¬ 
mission,  46. 

-  commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  concerning 

employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  art.  2:  opposed  to  exclu¬ 
sion  of  commercial  workers  from  provisions,  175. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  resolution  No.  4,  lack  of  precision 

in  wording  of  resolution,  143. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treat¬ 
ment  of  foreign  workers,  opposed  to  Swiss  amendment  referring  subject  to 
governing  body,  153:  accepts  proposal  of  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne  for  dispo¬ 
sition  of  part  2  of  his  amendment,  157. 

PALO  MO  RODRIGUEZ,  ALFREDO  (0/  Brazil,  employers’  delegate.) 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1,2).  19;  Oct.  30  (3).  28:  Oct.  31  (41.30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6).  40:  Nov.  5  (71,  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  9(9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10). 
77;  Nov.  12(11),  85;  Nov.  13(12).  90;  Nov.  17(131,92:  Nov.  19(14).  100;  Nov. 20 
(15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18).  130;  Nov.  25(19), 
138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25).  2C1. 

PAN-AMERICAN  UNION.  Appreciation  of  hospitality  accepted  by  conference, 
remarks,  Dr.  John  Barrett,  199;  reply  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy),  200. 
Arranges  distribution  of  documents  of  conference 'in  Spanish  language,  18. 
Organization,  11. 

PANAMA.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

Labor,  Admission  of  Panama  workers  to  Canal  Zone  in  preference  to  unskilled 
workers  of  other  nations  and  on  equal  footing  with  those  of  United  States, 
request  for  consideration  of,  Mr.  Paredes  (Panama),  243. 

PAPAL  ENCYCLICAL.  De  Rerum  Novarum,  69. 

PARAGUAY.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

Delegates:  Motion  for  establishment  of  a  commission  on  minimum  wages,  271. 

PARDO,  Dr.  G.  (of  Italy). 

Member:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  as  secretary,  222. 

PAREDES,  JORGE  LUIS  (of  Panama,  Government  delegate). 

Admission  of  Panama  workers  to  the  Canal  Zone  in  preference  to  unskilled 
workers  of  other  nations  and  on  equal  footing  with  those  of  United  States, 
request  for  consideration  of,  243. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5).  3.3;  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7).  50;  Nov.  6  (84, 
.56;  Nov.  7  (9)  67:  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11).  85;  Nov.  13  (12).  91;  Nov.  19 
(14),  100;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  2S  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24), 
187. 

PARIS-LYONS-MEDITERRANEAN  RWY.  CO.  Deficit  in  profits  of,  due  in 
part  to  enforcement  of  8-hour  law,  65. 

ARSONS,  S.  R.  (of  Canada , employers’  delegate). 

Criticized  by  Mr.  Mertens  (Belgium)  for  remarks  declining  to  sign  48-hou  - 
week  draft  convention,  72. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5)  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10)  77;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  27  (22), 
16V  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

Motion:  Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  treaty  of  peace,  art.  405,  sec.  3,  0: 
application  of  8-hour  day  to  tropical  countries,  to  be  referred  to  a  speci  J 
committee,  38;  withdrawn,  48. 

Remarks:  Eight -hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  commission  on  hours  of  won- 
draft  convention,  statement  on  behalf  of  Canadian  employers  opposed  t..- 
reduction  of  hours  of  work,  114. 

- - organizing  committee’s  draft  convention,  employers’  proposal  ol 

Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain)  opposed,  57;  on  statements  attacked  by 
Mr.  Jouhaux  (France),  59;  on  withdrawing  motion  relative  to  application  ol 
8-hour  day  to  tropical  countries,  48;  president’s  ruling  on  discussion  of, 
agreed  to,  54;  proposing  reference  of  that  part  of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great 
Britain)  relative  to  tropical  countries  to  a  special  committee,  38. 

PADS,  G.  (of  Norway,  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3);  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3(5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9).  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov. 
26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  2S  (23),  176;  Nov.  28 
(24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes.  39,  252. 

Remarks:  Eight-hour  day  and  48-hour  week,  commission  on  hours  of  work 
draft  convention,  reason  for  voting  against  the  draft  convention,  128. 
- art.  6,  amendment,  127. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childlirth,  art.  5  (establishing  period  ol 
six  weeks  before  confinement  as  legal  time  in  which  pregnant  working  women 
are  entitled  to  receive  maternity  benefits),  questionsstatement  «f  Judge  Cast- 
berg  (Norway)  as  to  degree  of  maternity  protection  afforded  in  Norway,  176. 

PENSIONS,  OLD-AGE.  See  OLD-AGE  PENSIONS. 

Workers’  pensions  to  be  included  in  agenda  of  next  conference,  motion  of  Mr. 
Sanji  Muto  (Japan),  272. 


PEREZ,  LUIS  MARINO.  See  Marino  Perez,  Luis. 

PERITCH,  Dr.  LUDEVIT  (of  the  Serb,  Croat,  and  Slovene  Slate,  Government  dele¬ 
gate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  No.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov. 
19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16).  114;  Nov.  24  (17).  124:  Nov.  25 
(18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

PERSIA. 

Delegates,  Government:  Finkel  (H.  C.),  member  of  commission  on  special 
countries,  229. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  recommends  exemption  of  Persia  from 

application  of  art.  405  of  treaty  of  peace,  158;  report  on  Persia,  232. 

PERU.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Pujazon  (V.  A.),  member  of  commission  on  special  coun¬ 
tries,  229. 

Proposal  of  Peruvian  delegates  relating  to  definition  of  term  “labor,”  text 
and  action  taken  by  committee  of  selection,  205. 

PHELAN,  E.  J.  (of  Great  Britain). 

M ember:  Commission  on  standing  orders,  as  secretary,  213. 

PHOTOGRAPH  OF  DELEGATES,  arrangements,  17. 

PINI,  HERMENEGILDO  (of  Argentina,  employeers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12).  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92; 
Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov. 
25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21);  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28 
(23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

PIRELLI,  W.  (of  Italy). 

Member:  Nominated  employers’  member  of  governing  body  ol  international 
labor  office,  131. 

PLACEMENT  OF  WORKERS.  Public  employment  exchanges  (see  that  title). 

Recruiting  of  workers  (see  that  title). 

PLUMBISM.  General  conference  of  the  International  Labor  Organization,  recom¬ 
mendation  concerning  protection  of  women  and  children  against  lead  poison¬ 
ing,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to,  179;  text  in  full,  262. 

Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  report  presented  with  remarks  by  Dr. 
Legge  (Great  Brijtain)  98;  discussed  by  M.  Boulin  (France),  99. 

POLAND. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Zagleniczny  (J.),  member  of  commission  on  unem¬ 
ployment,  234;  member  of  commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

Delegates,  Government:  Jastrebowski  (M.),  member  of  commission  on  special 
countries,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Zagleniczny ,^29. 

— - Sokal  (F.Y,  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234:  substitute 

for  Mr.  Spinka  (Czecho-Slovakia)  as  member  of  committee  of  selection,  29, 205. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Bernatowicz  (E.),  member  of  commission  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  children,  247. 

German  oppression  of,  remarks,  M.  Bernatowicz  (Poland),  31. 

International  labor  office,  objection  to  the  suggested  governing  body,  14. 

POLK,  FRANK  LYON  (of  the  United  States). 

Letter  to  Mr.  de  Lersner,  German  plenipotentiary  at  the  peace  conference,  21. 

PORTUGAL.  Delay  of  delegates  in  arriving  explained,  Mr.  Barbosa(Portugal),108. 

Delegates,  Government:  Camoeses  (Dr.  J.),  member  of  commission  on  un¬ 
healthy  processes,  252. 

- Fernandez  (Maj.  T.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

Representation  in  conference,  remarks,  Mr.  Barbosa  (Portugal)  and  M.  Mabaim 
(Belgium),  108. 

POSADA,  ADOLFO  GONZALES.  See  Gonzales  Posada  (Adolfo). 

PREPELUH,  ALBIN  (of  the  Serb,  Croat,  and  Slovene  State). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

PRESIDENT  OF  CONFERENCE.  Permanent  president,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson, 
elected,  28. 

Provisional  president,  sessions  1-3,  Hon.  W.  B.  Wilson,  11-28. 

PRESS.  Criticism  of  press  construction  upon  vote  on  48-hour  week,  M.  Jouhaux 
(France),  51. 

Secretary  general  to  issue  daily  communique  to  press,  motion  by  Baron  Mayor 
des  Planches  (Italy),  51;  seconded  by  Dr.  Cueva  Garcia  (Ecuador),  51;  op¬ 
posed  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  51;  withdrawal  supported  by  Dr.  Cueva 
Garcia,  52;  withdrawn,  52. 

PREVOST.  CARLOS  (of  Peru,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3)  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov. 
10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14), 
100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  16S;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov. 
29  (25),  201. 

PRICE,  J.  F.  G.  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Appointed  substitute  of  Right  Hon.  G.  N.  Barnes,  unable  to  attend,  12. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1.  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  12 
(11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20), 
146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Barnes,  234. 

PRICE  FIXING.  Agricultural  staples,  factors  affecting;  study  by  David  Lubin 
referred  to,  135. 

PRODUCTION.  Determined  by  development  of  machinery  and  organization  of 
labor,  remarks,  M.  Jouhaux  (France). 

Hours  of  work  and  production,  remarks  on  relation  of,  M.  Jouhaux  (France), 
42,  59. 

Increased  production  desired  by  both  employers  and  workers,  M.  Carlier 
(Belgium),  44;  M.  Mertens  (Belgium),  72. 

Long  working  hours  reduce  production,  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States),  45. 

Population  and  production,  remarks  on  relation  of,  Dr.  Calvo  (Panama),  68. 

Short  working  hours  lessen  production,  Mr.  Parsons  (Canada),  57;  M.  Guerin 
(France),  65. 

PROFITEERING.  Production  and  profiteering;  remarks,  Mr.  Parsons  (Canada), 
57. 

PUBLIC  EMPLOYMENT  EXCHANGES. 

Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention;  art.  2,  establishment  of  pub¬ 
lic  employment  agencies;  text,  237;  debated,  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada)  144;  M. 
Lazard  (France),  144;  voted  on,  carried,  145. 

• - arts.  2-3,  provisions  inapplicable  to  Brazil;  covered  by  Brazilian  law 

and  constitution,  Dr.  de  Mello  Franco  (Brazil),  145. 

- draft  recommendation  No.  1,  text  of,  237;  voted  on  as  reported  by  com¬ 
mission,  carried,  146;  voted  on  as  reported  by  drafting  committee,  record 
vote,  184. 

Commission  on  unemployment,  report,  majority,  132. 

PUBLIC  HEALTH  SERVICES.  General  Conference  of  International  Labor  Organ¬ 
ization,  recommendation  concermng  establishment  of,  voted  on  by  record 
vote,  agreed  to,  181;  text  of,  262. 


296 


INDEX 


PUBLIC  WORK?.  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  recommendation  No.  4, 
coordination  of  execution  of  public  works  to  balance  periods  of  unemploy¬ 
ment;  voted  as  reported  by  commission,  carried,  150;  voted  on  as  reported 
by  drafting  committee,  carried,  185;  text  of,  237. 

PUJAZON,  VICTOR  A.  (of  Peru,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  20  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  (3), 30,  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3(5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov. 
25  (19),  13S;  Nov.  26  (20).  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28 
(23),  176-  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

QUARTIERI,  ING.  F.  (of  Italy,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Oct.'  30  (3),  28. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- committee  of  selection,  30. 

QUICKSILVER.  See  Mercury. 

RAPPARD,  W.  E.  (of  Switzerland). 

Switzerland’s  representative  on  organizing  committee,  13. 

RECIPROCITY  OF  RIGHTS.  Discussion  of  principle  of,  19. 

RECIPROCITY  OF  TREATMENT  OF  NATIVE  AND  FOREIGN  WORK¬ 
ERS.  Argentine  Government  delegation’s  draft  convention  proposed  in 
matter  of  reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers,  241. 

Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention,  presented  M.  I.azard 
(France),  13;  voted  on,  183;  text  of,  237.  Remarks:  Dr.  P.iifenarht  (Swit¬ 
zerland).  Difficulty  of  enforcing  reciprocity  until  uniformity  in  labor  pro¬ 
tection  laws  of  all  countries  is  secured,  136;  Mr.  Schindler  "(Switzerland). 
Difficulty  cf  enforcing  reciprocity  until  uniformity  in  social  insurance  laws 
and  in  question  of  recognition  of  right  of  organization  has  been  secured  in  all 
coimtries,  142.  Motions:  Closure  of  debate  on,  Mr.  Draper  (Canada),  car¬ 
ried,  155;  Mr.  Schindler  (Switzerland),  lost,  155.  Amendments:  Dr.  di 
Palma  Castiglione  (Italy),  to  admit  foreign  workers  to  benefits  of  laws  of 
member  States  by  special  agreements,  presented,  143;  debated  favorably, 
Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  154;  adversely,  Mgr.  Nolens  (Belgium),  155;  part  1, 
voted  on,  carried,  157;  part  2,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevmgne  (Great  Britain)  pro¬ 
poses  that  it  be  referred  to  committee  of  selection,  157;  proposal  accepted  by- 
Ur.  di  Palma  Castiglione,  157;  Mr.  Robertson  (Canada)  suggests  amend¬ 
ment  clarifying  phraseology  so  as  to  exclude  compulsory  recognition  of 
trades-unions,  139.  Dr.  Rufenacht  (Switzerland),  for  postponement  of  dis¬ 
cussion  and  reference  of  subject  to  governing  body,  137;  debated  favorably, 
Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  154,  183;  adversely,  Dr.  Anastasi  (Argentina),  155; 
Dr.  di  Palma  Castiglione  (Italy),  153. 

- -  draft  resolution  No.  4.  Remarks:  Dr.  de  Mello  Franco  (Brazil),  op¬ 
posed,  152;  M.  Jouhaux  (France),  in  favor,  153;  voted  on,  carried,  153;  pas¬ 
sage  of  with  Gemmill  addition  voted  on,  carried,  153;  text  of,  234.  Amend¬ 
ment:  Mr.  Gemmill  (South  Africa),  introduced,  137;  text  of,  268;  debated 
favorably,  Mr.  Robertson  (Canada),  139;  Dr.  Gondra  (Paraquay),  151;  Mr. 
Crawford  (South  Africa),  152;  voted  on,  carried,  153. 

■ - report  (clause  relating  to  reciprocity  of  treatment  of  workers)  presented, 

132;  discussed  by  reporter  M.  Lazard  (France),  133;  134;  text  of  report,  234. 

General  Conference  of  International  Labor  Organization:  Recommendation 
adopted  by,  text  in  full,  259. 

Organizing  committee’s  report,  point  16,  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  for 
appointment  of  a  commission  with  instructions  to  study  principle  of  reci¬ 
procity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers,  19,  268;  withdrawn,  20. 

Recommendations  adopted  by  General  Conference,  text  of,  256,  et  seq. 

See  also  Migration  of  workers. 

RECRUITING  OF  WORKERS. 

Commission  on  unemployment  draft  recommendation  No.  2.  Voted  on,  as  re¬ 
ported  by  commission,' carried,  146;  vote  ruled  invalid,  148;  motion  to  recon¬ 
sider  passed  and  voted  on,  149;  voted  on  as  reported  by  drafting  committee, 
record  vote,  184;  text  of,  237.  Remarks:  Explanation  as  to  intent  request¬ 
ed,  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  146;  reply,  M.  Lazard  (France),  146;  inquiry  regard¬ 
ing  understanding  as  to  consultation  procedure,  M.  Fontaine  (France),  146; 
reply,  M.  Lazard  (France),  146;  report  presented,  text  of,  234. 

REES,  DAVID  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

RESEARCH  IN  UNHEALTHY  PROCESSES,  organizing  committee’s  recom¬ 
mendation  that  international  labor  office  undertake,  254. 

RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED  BY  CONFERENCE,  text  of,  276,  et  seq. 

RAYMOND,  TONY  (of  France,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  21  (16),  113. 

RIDDELL,  DR.  WALTER  A.  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  secretary,  234. 

RIGHT  OF  COMBINATION  AND  ASSEMBLY.  Principle  of  as  one  of  bases 
of  labor  policy  of  international  labor  office  to  be  determined  at  next  confer¬ 
ence,  motion  of  Mr.  Largo  Caballero  (Spain),  272. 

RIGHT  OF  ORGANIZATION;  FOREIGN  WORKERS.  See  Reciprocity  of 
Treatment. 

Japan,  prohibition  of  is  in  opposition  to  fundamental  spirit  of  International 
Labor  Conference,  52. 

RIO,  FELIX  NIETO  DEL.  See  Nieto  del  Rio,  Felix. 

ROBERTSON,  E.  BLAKE,  (of  Canada,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16).  116;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Parsons,  233. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of 
treatment  of  foreign  workers,  amendment  suggested  clarifying  phraseology  so 
as  to  exclude  compulsory  recognition  of  trades-unions,  139. 

ROBERTSON,  HON.  GIDEON  D.  (of  Canada,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  77,  222. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

- committee  of  selection,  29, 205. 

Motions:  Hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  2,  amendment,  exception  to 
S-hour  day  in  case  of  observance  of  Saturday  half  holiday,  268. 

ROGOWICZ,  JAN  (of  Poland,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

ROSAINZ  Y  DE  LOS  REYES,  LUIS  (of  Cuba,  employers’  delegate). 

Appointment  of  protested;  report  of  commission  on  credentials,  206. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nor.  21  (16),  113;  Nor. 
24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  28  (231,  176;  Nov.  28  (24). 
187. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

Motions:  Hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  42  amendment  to  omit  “raw 
sugar”  from  proposed  amendments  to  article,  275. 


ROSS,  A.  J.  C.  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 

Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Marjori- 
banks,  234. 

ROUMANIA.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries  recommends  exemption  of 
Roumania  from  application  of  art.  405  of  treaty  of  peace.  158. 

- exemption  of  Roumania  for  three  years  from  application  of  hours  of 

work  convention;  text  of  supplementary  report,  233. 

- Roumanian  Government  delegates,  motion,  M.  Orghidan  and  M. 

Michaesco,  to  delay,  for  not  less  than  three  years,  application  to  Roumania 
of  draft  convention  of  organizing  committee,  268. 

ROWELL,  HON.  NEWTON  W.  (of  Canada,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6), 40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9).  67;  Nov.  10  ( 10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123:  Nov.  25  (18).  130; 
Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146:  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov. 

28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Motions:  Adoption  provisionally  of  standing  orders,  17. 

—  - -hours  of  work  draft  convention,  reference  of  convention  and  proposed 

amendment  to  a  special  commission.  26s. 

Remarks:  Adoption  provisionally  of  standing  orders,  17,  18. 

- - admission  of  delegates  to  conference,  26. 

- admission  to  International  Labor  Organization,  power  of  conference  to 

admit  Finland,  79. 

—  - commission  on  applications  for  admission,  minority  report  on  admission 

of  Finland  and  interpretation  of  art.  387,  treaty  of  peace,  78,  79. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  concerning  em¬ 
ployment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth  art.  1  (6),  inquiry  as  to  use 
of  word  “commercial”  complying  with  practice  of  other  conventions,  175. 

- art.  7  (maternity  benefits),  amendment,  176. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  inquiry  as  to  inclusion 

of  lumber  and  logging  industry  in  convention,  122. 

- opposed  to  resolution  appended  to  final  report  of  commission  as 

being  out  of  order,  130. 

- seconding  motion  of  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States)  for  reference 

of  whole  subject  to  a  committee,  4S. 

- art.  1  (c),  correction,  119. 

- art.  1  (d),  opposed  to  amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  (South  Africa) 

to  include  inland  navigation,  116. 

- art.  1  (d),  amendment,  119,  120. 

- art.  6,  provision  covering  seasonal  work,  127. 

- - commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treat¬ 
ment  of  foreign  workers,  in  favor- of  Swiss  amendment  for  reference  of  con¬ 
vention  to  governing  body,  154,  183. 

- draft  recommendations  art.  2,  recruiting  of  foreign  workers,  ex¬ 
planation  as  to  intent  requested,  146. 

- art.  2,  wisdom  of  regulating  domestic  administration  of  labor 

services  by  international  convention  questioned,  144. 

- governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  certain  authority  expend¬ 
ing  ratification  of  treaty  of  peace,  motion  of  M.  Fontaine  (France),  193. 

- opposed  to  proposal  of  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy)  that  secretary 

issue  a  daily  communique  to  the  press,  52. 

- - organizing  committee  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  proposes  pro¬ 
cedure  for  consideration  of,  73;  in  favor  of  adjournment  to  gain  time  for  con¬ 
sideration  of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

- - amending  motion  of  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain)  by  moving 

postponement  of  debate  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  37. 

- organizing  committee's  report,  adoption  of,  20. 

Reports:  Commission  on  applications  for  admission,  minority  report  presented, 
78;  text  of  report  and  supplementary  report  in  full,  212. 

RUFENACHT,  DR.  HERMANN  (of  Switzerland,  Government  delegate). 

Unable  to  attend  tenth  session,  67. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30:  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85:  Nov. 
13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16), 
114,  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov. 

29  (25),  201. 

Motion:  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of 
treatment  of  foreign  workers,  to  postpone  discussion  and  refer  subject  to 
governing  body,  137. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of 
treatment  of  foreign  w’orkers,  difficulty  of  enforcement  until  uniformity  in 
labor  protection  laws  of  all  countries  is  secured,  136. 

- labor  legislation  of  Switzerland,  42. 

- organizing  committee's  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  supporting 

motion  of  Mr.  Bames  (Great  Britain),  41. 

RUSSIA.  Proposal  for  peace  negotiations;  acceptance  by  nations  interested; 
motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  265. 

RYMER,  DR.  JOZEF  (of  Poland,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  SessionsofOct.29(l,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3), 28;  Nov.3(5),33;  Nov.4(6), 
40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (S),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10)  77;  Nov.  12  (11), 
85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  111;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov. 
26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (  21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  16S;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28 
(24),  187;  Nov.  29,  (25),  201. 

SAASTAMOINEN,  A.  H.  (of  Finland,  Government  delegate). 

White  phosphorus  in  manufacture  of  matches;  letter  to  secretary  general  of 
conference,  274. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 

Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 
Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  1  (d),  supporting 
amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  (South  Africa),  to  include  inland  navigation,  119. 

SACCO,  DR.  MARIO  (of  Italy,  advisor  to  workers’  delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

SAILORS  ON  INLAND  WATERS;  HOURS  OF  LABOR.  See  Inland 
Navigation. 

SALA,  ALFONSO  (of  Spain,  employers’  delegate.) 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30(3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov. 
28  (24),  188. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- committee  of  selection,  30,  205. 

Motions:  Child  labor,  commission  on  employment  of  children;  report  amended 
to  provide  for  vocational  education,  269. 

Remarks:  Admission  of  Germany  and  Austria,  in  favor  of,  24. 

- agenda  for  International  Labor  Conference  of  1920. 198. 


INDEX. 


297 


SALVADOR.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

SAMPAIO,  DR.  CESAR  DE  OLIVEIRA.  See  Oliveira  Sampaio  (Dr. 
C£sar  DE). 

SAN  DOMINGO.  Admission  of  to  International  Labor  Conference,  resolution  of 
conference,  276. 

SANCHEZ  LATOUR,  FRANCISCO  (of  Guatemala,  Government  delegate'). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14), 
100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130; 
Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov. 
28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

SANGER,  MISS  SOPHY  (of  Great  Britain). 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  as  secretary,  243. 

SANGRO,  PEDRO  (of  Spain,  adviser  to  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  28  (23),  176. 

SATO,  KOHEI  (of  Japan,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

SATURDAY  HALF  HOT.IDA  Y,  agenda  of  next  conference  to  include,  motion  by 
Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  272. 

SCHINDLER,  DIETRICH  (of  Switzerland,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1.2),  19;  Oct.  30  (31,  28:  Oct.31(4),30:  Nov.3(5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9).  67;  Nov.  10(10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85:  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov. 
28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  77:  222. 

- commission  on  emplovment  of  women,  39,  243. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

- employers’  member  of  governing  body  of  international  labor  office 

pending  appointment  of  United  States  representative,  131. 

Motions:  Commission  on  special  countries,  closure  of  debate,  165;  voted  on, 
carried,  166. 

- commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treat¬ 
ment  of  foreign  workers,  closure  of  debate,  154. 

— - commission  on  unemplovment.  majority  report,  conclusions  to  be  re¬ 

ferred  to  international  labor  office  for  allocation  to  proper  department;  joint 
motion  with  M.  Guerin  (France),  141,  268;  voted  on,  lost,  143. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  employers’  delegates  of  Switzerland 
support  alternative  of  Mr.  Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  42. 

- commission  on  unemplovment,  concurs  with  M.  Guerin  (France)  in 

recommending  reference  of  conclusions  of  majority  report  of  commission  to 
governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  142. 

- —  draft  convention  on  reciprocity  of  treatment  of  foreign  workers, 

lack  of  uniformity  in  state  insurance  laws  renders  international  regulation 
difficult.  142. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women  minority  report  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  signed  by,  245. 

SECRETARY  GENERAL  OF  CONFERENCE,  letter  to  chairmen  of  committees, 

91. 

Thanksgiving  Day  recess,  and  program  for  remainder  of  week  announced,  139. 
International  labor  office,  results  of  election  for  governing  body  of  announced, 
131. 

Butler,  H.  B.  (Great  Britain),  chosen  permanent  secretary  general  unani¬ 
mously,  29. 

SECRETARY  OF  THE  NAVY,  UNITED  STATES  (HON.  JOSEPHUS 
DANIELS)  extends  invitation  to  conference  to  visit  Mount  Vernon,  59. 
Vote  of  thanks  to,  for  providing  accommodations  for  conference,  51. 

SEAMEN.  Norway’s  law  referred  to  by  Judge  Castberg  (Norway),  118. 
SEASONAL  WORK.  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  6  (pro¬ 
vision  covering  seasonal  work),  remarks  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  127;  M. 
Fontaine  (France),  127. 

SEATING  ACCOMMODATIONS,  arrangements  for,  16. 

SERRARENS,  P.  (of  The  Netherlands,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  13  (12;,  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  101. 
Member:  Commission  on  unemplovment,  as  substitute  for  M.  Oudegeest, 

38,  234. 

SEXTON,  J.  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Unemployment  caused  by  present  system  of  land  tenure,  Mr.  Sexton’s  pro¬ 
posed  remedy  omitted  from  report  of  commission  on  unemployment;  re¬ 
marks,  Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (Canada),  139. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  Mr.  Stuart-Bun- 
niug,  234. 

SHAW,  TOM  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Substitute  for  Mr.  Stuart-Bunning  (Great  Britain),  33. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  4  (6).  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov. 
24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130. 

Member:  Commission  on  hours  of  work,  as  chairman,  77,  222. 

Motions:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  4,  closure  moved, 
126. 

■  - guarantee  of  minimum  advantages  to  workers  of  all  countries,  ap¬ 

pended  in  form  of  resolution  to  final  report  of  commission  on  hours  of  work, 
presented,  voted  on,  and  agreed  to  unanimously,  129. 

— —  organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  S-hour  day,  to  defer  dis¬ 
cussion  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  38;  voted  on,  agreed  to, 
38;  closure  of  debate  on,  73. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention  art.  1  (d),  opposed 
to  amendment  by  Mr.  Smyth  (South  Africa)  to  include  inland  naviga¬ 
tion,  118. 

- art.  4,  defense  of  committee’s  report,  126. 

- - organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  8-hour  day,  further  imme¬ 
diate  discussion  of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain)  undesirable,  moves 
adjournment  of  discussion,  38. 

- submitting  workers’  delegates’  amendments,  63. 

■  - opposing  motion  of  Mr.  Gompers  (United  States)  to  refer  entire 

subject  to  a  committee,  48. 

- opposing  employers’  declaration:  in  favor  of  proposal  of  M. 

Jouhaux  (France),  46. 

SHIFT  SYSTEM.  Continuous  industries:  commission  on  hours  of  work  draft 
convention  art  4,  shift  system  in  continuous  processes,  amendment  by  Judge 
Castberg  (Norway),  125. 

■  - Norway’s  law  of  1919,  provisions  of  outlined  by  Judge  Castberg  (Nor¬ 

way),  125. 

Eight  hours,  half  hour  rest;  woman  labor,  6  a.  m.  to  10  p.  m.,  proposed  by 
Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  103;  rejected,  106. 


SHIFT  SYSTEM— Continued. 

Eight  hours,  hour  rest;  woman  labor,  4  a  m.  to  10  p.  m.,  amendment  to  report 
of  committee  on  employment  of  women  at  night  proposed  by  M.  Guerin 
(France),  104;  rejected,  107. 

France,  operation  in,  104. 

Italian  cotton  and  textile  industries;  agreement  between  Federation  of  Labor 
and  employers  for  adoption  of,  103. 

Organizing  committees’  report  on,  228. 

Tendency  toward  adoption  of,  discussed  by  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  103. 

SHOTWELL,  JAMES  T.  (of  United  States). 

United  States  representative  on  organizing  committee,  13. 

SIAM.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

Delegates,  Government;  Bhakdi  (Phya  Chanindr),  member  of  commission  on 
special  countries,  229. 

Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries,  report  on  Siam,  232;  recom¬ 
mends  exemption  of  Siam  from  application  of  art.  405  of  treaty  of  peace,  158. 

SICK  AND  DEATH  BENEFITS.  Agenda  of  next  conference  to  include,  motion 
of  Mr.  Sanji  Muto  (Japan),  272. 

SJOBORG,  JUDGE  A.  ERIK  M.  (of  Sweden,  Government  delegate). 

Illness  prevents  attendance,  33. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
21  (16),  114;  Nov.  28  (24),  188. 

SKINZOPOULOS,  ANGELUS  (of  Greece,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2)  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov. 
10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14), 
100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107:  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (  20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176: 
Nov.  28  (24),  187:  Nov.  29  (25),  20l. 

Motion:  Organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  applica¬ 
tion  of  to  Greece,  268. 

SMET  DE  NAYER,  MAURICE  DE  (of  Belgium,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 
Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

SMITH,  ALLAN  (of  Great  Britain). 

Member:  Employers’  member  of  governing  body  of  international  labor  office, 
131. 

SMITH,  MISS  CONSTANCE  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 
Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  as  chairman,  39,  243. 
Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  women  draft  convention  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  art.  1,  on  amendment  of  M. 
Gascon  Marin  (Spain),  opposed  at  this  time  to  commercial  workers,  74. 

- report  on  employment  of  women  of,  commented  on,  171. 

- art.  4,  inquiry  as  to  ruling  of  chair  on  amendment  of  M.  Jouhaux 

(France),  180. 

- report,  majority,  on  employment  of  women  at  night  and  the 

extension  and  application  of  the  Bern  convention  of  1906  on  the  prohibition 
of  night  work  of  women,  presentation,  102. 

Reports:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  presentation  of  majority 
report  on  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  171;  text  of 
report,  244. 

- employment  of  women  at  night,  text  of,  245. 

SMYTH,  G.  WARINGTON  (of  South  Africa,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29 (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30(3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67:  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15).  107;  Nov. 
21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26 
(20),  147:  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24), 
188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

Motions:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  draft  convention  to  prohibit 
night  work  of  young  persons  employed  in  industry,  art.  3,  amendment  add¬ 
ing  gold-mining  reduction  works  to  exceptions  allowed  in  certain  con¬ 
tinuous  industries  for  persons  between  16  and  18,  170,  270. 

Remarks:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  in  explanat  ion  of  commis¬ 
sion’s  report  on  minimum  age" of  child  labor,  and  in  defense  of  India,  95. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work,  draft  convention,  art.  1  (d),  amendment 

including  inland  navigation  provision,  118,  119. 

SOCIAL  INSURANCE;  FOREIGN  WORKERS.  See  Reciprocity  op  Treat¬ 
ment,  ETC. 

SOFIANOPOULOS,  JOHN  (of  Greece,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107; 
Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov. 
26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (  21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28 
(24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

Motions:  Commission  on  employment  of  children  draft  convention  on  mini¬ 
mum  age,  art.  1,  amendment  exempting  from  operation  of  article,  for  three 
years,  those  countries  which  have  not  yet  introduced  vocational  training,  98. 
269. 

- - organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  application 

of  to  Greece,  268. 

Remarks:  Credentials  of  delegates  of  Greece,  27. 

- child  labor  in  Greece,  97. 

SOKAL,  FRANCISZEK  (of  Poland,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15).  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov. 
25  (19),  138:  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28 
(24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

- committee  of  selection,  29,  205. 

- factory  inspectors’  provisional  committee,  158. 

Motions:  Vocational  training,  270. 

Remarks:  Amendment  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy)  to  point  16  of  organizing  com¬ 
mittee,  20. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  remarks  of  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spain) 

objected  to,  32. 

-  - majority  report  (Lazard)  is  not  complete  unless  provision  of 

minority  report  (Baldesi)  is  included,  136. 

SOL,  DON  SALV  ADOR  (o)  Salvador,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  30  (3).28;  Nov.  3  f  51,  33:  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  A  (8), 
56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67:  Nov.  10  (10),  77:  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19 
(14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  28(24;,  187;  Nov.  29  (25), 


146865°— 20 - 20 


298 


INDEX. 


SOLAU,  GUILLAUME  (oj  Belgium,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  13  (12),  90. 

Member :  Commission  on  unemployment,  as  substitute  for  M.  Mertens,  233. 
SOUSEK,  J.  (of  Czechoslovakia,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1, 2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  5 (7), 
50;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19 
(14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20), 
146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187; 
Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

SOUTH  AFRICA. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Gemmill  (W.),  member  of  commission  on  special 
countries,  229. 

Delegates,  Government:  Smyth  (H.  Warington),  member  of  commission  on 
special  countries,  229;  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 
Delegates,  workers’:  Crawford  (A.),  member  of  commission  on  special  coun¬ 
tries,  229;  appointment  of,  protested,  report  of  commission  on  credentials,  206. 
Hours  of  work:  Commission  on  special  countries,  report  on  South  Africa,  232. 
SPAIN.  Credentials  not  received,  27. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Sala  (A.),  member  of  commission  on  employment  of 
children,  247;  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30,  205. 

Delegates,  Government:  Eza,  Viscount  de,  member  of  commission  on  standing 
orders,  31,  213;  member  of  commission  on  unemployment,  234. 

- Posada  (A.  G.),  member  of  commission  of  selection,  29,  205. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Araquistain  (L.),  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy 
processes,  252. 

- Largo  Caballero  (F.),  member  of  commission  of  selection,  30,  205;  mem¬ 
ber  of  commission  on  employment  of  children,  247. 

International  labor  office,  represented  conditionally  on  governing  body  of, 
13,  14. 

SPANISH  LANGUAGE,  documents  of  conference  to  be  distributed  in,  17,  18. 

Proposal  to  adopt  as  an  official  language  of  conference,  Viscount  de  Eza 
(Spain),  18. 

SPINKA  CHARLES  (of  Czechoslovakia,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 

3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40:  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov. 
12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13).  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123:  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  146; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov. 
29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Member  of  commission  of  selection,  29;  substituted  by  Mr.  Sokal 
(Poland),  29. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

STANDING  ORDERS,  amendment  ot,  motion  of  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  265. 
Art.  14,  closure  of  debate,  ruling,  71. 

Commission  on  standing  orders,  report  presented,  107;  text  of,  213. 

Organizing  committee’s  report  on,  14. 

Provisional  adoption  of,  discussion,  17-18. 

STASTNY,  F.  (of  Czechoslovakia,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123; 
Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138. 

STATISTICS  ON  UNEMPLOYMENT.  Commission  on  unemployment,  pro¬ 
posals  for  collection  of,  133. 

STEEL  INDUSTRY.  Forty-eight  hour  week  adopted  in  Italy,  May,  1920,  53. 
STIVINOVA  MAJEROVA,  MME.  M.  (of  Czechoslovakia,  adviser  to  workers’  dele¬ 
gate). 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243. 

STOYKOVITCH,  VELIMIR  (of  the  Serb,  Croat,  and  Slovene  State,  adviser  to  Gov¬ 
ernment  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7), 
50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14).  100:  Nov. 
20  (15),  107;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130:  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20), 
147;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 
STUART-BUNNING,  G.  H.  (of  Great  Britain,  workers’  delegate). 

Unable  to  attend,  33. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct. 30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4), 30;  Nov. 3  (5) 
33;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  26  (21), 
157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  251. 

- committee  of  selection,  30,  2C5. 

- workers’  member  of  governing  body  of  international  labor  office,  131. 

Motion:  Child-labor  draft  convention  on  minimum  age,  art.  5,  amendment,  269. 
Remarks:  Admission  of  Finland  to  International  Labor  Organization,  in  sup¬ 
port  of  majority  report,  88. 

SULZER,  DR.  HANS  (of  Switzerland,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct. 30  (3),  28;  Oct. 31  (4),  30;  Nov. 3  (5), 
33:  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124; 
Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov. 
28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  39,  247. 

- commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

- committee  of  selection,  29t  205. 

- Switzerland’s  representative  on  organizing  committee,  13. 

Remarks:  Nomination  of  permanent  secretary  general  of  conference,  29. 
SWEATING  SYSTEM.  See  Home  Work. 

SWEDEN. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Edstrom  (J.  S.),  member  of  commission  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women,  39,  243. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Lindgvist  (A.  H.),  member  of  commission  of  selection, 
30,  205. 

Eight-hour-day  law  effective  Jan.  1,  1920,  remarks  on  provisions  of,  by  Senator 
von  Koch  (Sweden),  55. 

International  labor  office,  objection  to  suggested,  governing  body,  14. 

Labor  Council,  remarks  on  operation  of,  by  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden),  55. 
SWITZERLAND. 

Delegates,  employers’:  Schindler  (D.),  member  commission  on  hours  of  work, 
77  ,  222;  member  of  commission  on  employment  of  women,  39,  243;  member  of 
commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  252. 

Delegates,  Government:  Sulzer  (Dr.  H.),  member  of  commission  of  selection, 
29,  205;  member  of  commission  on  special  countries,  229;  member  of  com¬ 
mission  on  employment  of  children.  247. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Ilg  (C.),  member  of  commission  on  standing  orders,  31, 
213;  member  of  commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  252. 

International  labor  office,  representation  on  governing  body  of,  13,  14. 

Labor  legislation  (see  Labor  legisltaion). 


SYDOW,  SENATOR  IIJALMAR  VON  (of  Sweden,  employers'  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  3  (5),  33:  Nov.  4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov. 
12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24 
(17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147;  Nov.  26 
(21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (24),  188. 

TAYERLE,  R.  (of  Czechoslovakia,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50:  Nov.  6  (8),  56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92:  Nov.  19  (14), 
100;  Nov.  26  (20),  146:  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23), 
176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  standing  orders,  31;  213. 

- Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

Motions:  Organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  amend¬ 
ment  to  include  application  of  principle  of  8-hour  day  to  commerce  ani 
agriculture,  55,  267. 

Remarks:  Eight-hour  day  principle,  its  application  to  agriculture  and  com¬ 
merce,  54. 

TEIGEN,  J.  (of  Norway,  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  (3),  30,  2S:  Oct.  31  (4),  30:  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50:  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15), 
107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123:  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138; 
Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  16S;  Nov.  28  (23),  176; 
Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

TEN  BOKKEL  HUININK,  S.  See  Huinink  (S.  Ten  Bokkf.l). 

THANKSGIVING  DAY.  International  Labor  Conference  unites  with  people  of 
United  States  in  expression  of  Thanksgiving  and  praise;  motion  of  M. 
Fontaine  (France),  seconded,  Hon.  G.  D.  Robertson  (Canada),  167,  277. 

THIENEN,  G.  J.  VAN  (of  The  Netherlands,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,  2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33:  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123:  Nov.  25  (18), 
130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138:  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  '21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22), 
168;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  39,  252. 

THOMAS,  ALBERT  (of  France). 

Provisional  director  of  international  labor  office,  168. 

THORSEN,  TH.  G.  (of  Norway,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  28  (24),  187:  Nov.  29  (25),  201. 

TIME  SCHEDULE.  Provisional  schedule  adopted,  51. 

TRADES-UNION  CONFERENCE.  See  International  Trades-Union  Con¬ 
ference. 

TRADES-UNIONS.  Japan;  text  of  art.  17  of  Japanese  police  regulations,  which  is 
used  by  Government  as  a  weapon  to  prevent  organization  of  labor,  160. 
Recognition  of,  Canada:  statements  of  Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (Canada) 
assailed;  Canadian  industrial  peace  dependent  on  admission  of  right  of  col¬ 
lective  bargaining  to  trades-unions,  142. 

- Commission  on  unemployment  draft  resolution  No.  4,  amended  so  as  to 

clarify  phraseology  permitting  construction  in  favor  of  compulsory  recogni¬ 
tion  of;  remarks,  Mr.  E.  Blake  Robertson  (Canada),  139. 

TRANSPORT  WORKERS;  HOURS.  See  Hours  of  Work. 

TREATY  OF  PEACE.  Art.  387,  International  Labor  Organization  (see  that  title). 
Art.  387,  membership  in  International  Labor  Organization;  opinion  of  legal 
adviser,  Mr.  Hudson,  211. 

Art.  3S9,  International  Labor  Office  to  study  procedure  prescribed  in  motion 
of  Mr.  Marino  Perez  (Cuba),  109. 

-  (3),  letter  of  interpretation  from  legal  adviser,  Mr.  Hudson,  207. 

Art.  393  (7),  governing  body  of  international  labor  office  (see  International 
labor  office). 

Art.  405,  remarks  on.  by  Baron  di  Palma  Castiglione  (Italy),  46. 

- (3),  application  of,  to  countries  claiming  special  consideration  (see 

Commission  on  special  countries). 

TROPICAL  COUNTRIES;  HOURS  OF  WORK.  See  Commission  on  Special 
Countries. 

UNEMPLOYMENT.  Allocation  of  work  carried  on  by  public  authorities,  com¬ 
mission  on  unemployment  in  its  report  comments  on  this  as  one  of  three 
measures  to  prevent  unemployment,  133. 

Argentine  delegation,  proposals  in  matter  of  unemployment,  240. 

Commission  on  unemployment,  appointment  of,  debated,  M.  Fontaine 
(France),  31;  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spain),  31;  voted  on,  carried  unanimously,  31. 
- scope  of  study  of  to  include  social,  legal,  and  economic  phases;  commis¬ 
sion  to  be  enlarged  from  9  to  15,  remarks  by  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spain),  31; 
Viscount  de  Eza’s  remarks  objected  to  by  Mr.  Sokal  (l’o’and),  withdrawn,  32. 
Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention,  explanation  of  intent  of 
commission  concerning  agricultural  occupations  and  statistics  and  employ¬ 
ment  agencies,  Mr.  Armenteros  y  Cardenas  (Cuba),  144;  reply  M.  Lazard 
(France),  144. 

Commission  on  unemployment  draft  convention  as  adopted  by  general  con¬ 
ference  of  International  Labor  Organization,  text  of,  258. 

- art.  1  (quarterly  reports  on  unemployment  to  be  sent  to  international 

labor  office),  voted  on,  carried,  145;  text  of,  237. 

- art.  2  (establishment  of  free  public  employment  agencies),  wisdom  of 

regulating  domestic  administrarion  of  labor  services  by  international  con¬ 
vention  questioned  by  Mr.  Rowell  (Canada),  144;  reply  to  Mr.  Rowell  by  M. 
Lazard  (France),  144;  article  voted  on,  carried,  145;  text  of,  237. 

— r - arts.  2-3,  provisions  inapplicable  to  Brazil;  covered  by  Brazilian  law 

and  constitution;  remarks  by  Dr.  de  Mello  Franco  (Brazil),  145. 

- draft  recommendation  No.  1  (employment  agencies),  voted  on,  carried, 

146;  vote  ruled  invalid,  148;  motion  to  reconsider  passed,  149;  voted  on,  car¬ 
ried,  149;  text  of,  237. 

— —  draft  recommendation  No.  4  (coordination  of  execution  of  public  works 
to  balance  periods  of  unemployment),  voted  on,  carried.  150;  text  of,  237. 
- draft  resolution  No.  1  (methods  of  collecting  and  publishing  informa¬ 
tion),  voted  on,  carried,  150. 

- report  (majority),  presentation  remarks  of  M.  Lazard  (France),  132; 

text  in  full,  234;  debated  by  M.  Guerin  (France),  141:  Mr.  Sokal  (Poland). 
136;  Mr.  E.  B.  Robertson  (Canada),  139. 

- motion  of  M.  Giffirin  (France),  and  Mr.  Schindler  (Sw itzerland),  to  refer 

conclusions  of  report  to  international  labor  office  for  allocation  to  proper 
departments,  141,  268;  voted  on,  lost,  143. 

- report,  minority,  presented  with  remarks  by  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  134; 

text  in  full,  237;  debated,  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  137;  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy), 
135;  Mr.  Blomjous  (Netherlands),  136:  M.  Jouhaux  ( France) ,  140. 
International  commission,  resolution  of  International  Labor  Conference  for 
creation  of  commission  to  gather  unemployment  data,  276. 

Organizing  committee’s  conclusions  witn  regard  to  second  point  on  agenda  of 
conference,  239. 


INDEX. 


299 


UNEMPLOYMENT— Continued. 

Organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  unemployment,  239. 

Relation  of  distribution  of  raw  materials  and  cost  of  ocean  freight  rates  to  un¬ 
employment,  motion  of  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy)  to  refer  study  of  to  League  of 
Nations,  135;  voted  on,  lost,  143. 

Uruguav:  Communication  from  Mr.  Varela  (Uruguay)  on  operation  of  Brum 
law,  2V4. 

UNEMPLOYMENT  INSURANCE.  Commission  on  unemployment  draft  con¬ 
vention,  art.  3  (establishment  of  systems  of  unemployment  insurance), 
voted  on,  carried,  145:  text  of.  035. 

- provisions  inapplicable  to  Brazil:  covered  by  Brazilian  law  and  con¬ 
stitution,  Dr.  de  Mcllo  Franco  (Brazil),  145. 

- draft  recommendation  No.  3,  remarks,  M.  Jouhaux  (France),  urging 

adoption  of  recommendation,  149. 

■ - compulsory  unemployment  insurance  supported,  Mr.  Posada 

(Spain),  150. 

• - remarks,  Mr.  Crawford  (South  Africa),  opposed  to  procedure 

in  presenting  recommendation,  149. 

- remarks,  M.  Mertens  (Belgium),  urging  unanimous  vote  for  rec¬ 
ommendation,  149. 

- remarks.  Mgr.  Nolens  (Netherlands),  urging  unanimous  vote  for 

recommendation,  150. 

- remarks,  M.  Carlier  (Belgium),  opposed  to  recommendation,  149. 

. - voted  on  as  reported  by  commission,  carried,  150;  voted  on  as 

presented  by  drafting  committee,  carried,  185;  text  of,  237. 

- draft  resolution  No.  2  (unemployment  insurance),  voted  on,  150:  post¬ 
ponement  of  consideration  oi,  voted  on.  carried,  151;  debated,  M.  Lazard 
(France).  150;  Sir  Malcolm  Delevinge  (Great  Britain),  150;  Mr.  Kershaw 
(India),  150. 

- report  presented.  133;  text  of  report,  234. 

Italy:  National  Institute  for  Placement  and  for  Insurance  against  Unemploy¬ 
ment,  memorandum  on  administration  of,  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy), 
242. 

UNHEALTHY  TRADES.  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes.  Report  pre¬ 
sented,  Dr.  Legge  (Great  Britain),  98;  text  of,  252. 

Match  industry  (see  White  phosphorus). 

Organizing  committee,  suggestions  and  recommendation  for  international 
action,  254. 

Plumbism  (see  that  title). 

UNITED  STATES. 

Delegates,  workers’:  Gompers,  (S.),  member  of  commission  on  unemployment, 
233. 

International  labor  office,  representation  of  on  governing  body,  13,  14. 

UNSAIN  DR.  ALEJANDRO  (of  Argentina,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

URUETA,  DR.  CARLOS  ADOLFO  (of  Colombia,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  6  (8), 
56:  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  ( 11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17 
(13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14)  .100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  28  (23),  176:  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

URUGUAY.  Old-age  pension  laws  of  Feb.  11  and  Sept.  1,  1919;  text  of,  272. 

Unemployment  in,  communication  from  Mr.  Varela  (Uruguay)  on  operation 
of  Brum  law,  274. 

UYEDA,  DR.  TEIJIRO  (of  Japan,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  21  (16),  114. 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  Dr.  Oka, 
39,  247. 

VACATIONS.  Motion,  Senator  von  Koch  (Sweden)  to  include  question  of  annual 
vacation  for  employees  in  agenda  for  next  conference,  271. 

VARELA,  GUSTAVO  MUNIZAGA.  See  Munizaga  Varela  (Gustavo). 

VARELA,  DR.  JACOBO  (of  Uruguay,  Government  delegate). 

Unemployment  in  Uruguay,  communication  relative  to  question  as  met  by 
Brum  law,  274. 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29(1,  2),  19;  October  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov. 
3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7,  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 
(10),  77;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16), 
114;  Nov.  24  (17),  124;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147; 
Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  2S  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188;  Nov. 
29  (25),  201. 

Motions:  Old-age  pensions  to  be  included  in  agenda  of  next  conference,  272. 

Remarks:  Argentine  workers’  delegate,  supporting  contested  admission  of,  112. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  draft  convention,  art.  10,  in  favor  of 

amendment  of  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  128. 

Organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  adoption  of  recom¬ 
mended,  68. 

- in  favor  of  immediate  discussion  of  motion  of  Mr.  Barnes  (Great 

Britain),  38. 

VELOZ,  NICOLAS  (of  Venezuela,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2)  19;  Oct.  30  (3)  28;  Oct.  31  (4)30;  Nov.  3  (5), 
33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67. 

VERKADE,  J.  A.  E.  (of  The  Netherlands,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Oct.  31  (4),  30;  Nov.  3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10 

(10) ,  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  91;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100; 
Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16),  114;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  26  (  20),  146;  Nov. 
26  (21),  157;  Nov.  27  (22),  168;  Nov.  28  (  23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187;  Nov.  29 
(25),  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  standing  orders,  31,  213. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  235. 

Remarks:  Organizing  committee’s  draft  convention  on  hours  of  work,  em¬ 
ployers’  delegates  of  Netherlands  opposed  to  alternative  proposal  of  Mr. 
Marjoribanks  (Great  Britain),  41. 

VENEZUELA. 

Delegates,  Government:  Dominici  (Dr  S.  A.),  member  of  commission  on 
special  countries,  229. 

VESTESEN,  H.  (of  Denmark,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  3  (5),  33;  Nov.  4  (6),  40;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12 

(11) ,  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov.  21  (16), 
113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  27  (22),  167; 
Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  unemployment,  38,  233. 

VICE  PRESIDENT  OF  CONFERENCE.  Employers’  representatives’  nominee, 
M.  Carlier  (Belgium),  29. 

Government  representatives’  nominee,  Mr.  Barnes  (Great  Britain),  29. 

Workers’  representatives’  nominee,  M.  Jouhaux  (France),  29. 

VICE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  (HON.  THOMAS  R.  MAR- 
SHALL)  addresses  conference,  61. 


VIDNES,  J.  (of  Norway,  adviser  to  workers’  delegate). 

Member:  Commission  on  employment  of  children,  as  substitute  for  M.  Ole 
Lian,  39,  247. 

VOCATIONAL  TRAINING. 

Commission  on  employment  of  children,  art.  1,  amendment  by  Mr.  Sofianopoulos 
(Greece),  exempting  from  operation  of  article  for  three  years  those  countries 
which  have  not  yet  introduced  vocational  training,  98,  269. 

- report,  amendment,  Mr.  Sala  (Spain)  to  provide  for  consideration  of 

vocational  education,  269. 

Motion  offered  by  a  group  of  delegates,  viz,  M.  Lazard  (France),  Baron  Mayor 
des  Planches  (Italy),  Viscount  de  Eza  (Spain),  and  Mr.  Sokal  (Poland): 
text  of,  270. 

VOTING  PRIVILEGE.  Countries  not  having  both  workers’  and  employers’ 
representatives,  remarks,  Mr.  Barbosa  (Portugal),  108. 

WAGES  AND  HOURS. 

Baldesi  (G.),  of  Italy:  Remarks  to  accompany  his  motion  to  amend  art.  2  of 
draft  convention  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  providing  a  guaranty 
against  reduction  of  wages,  122;  motion  ruled  out  of  order,  123. 

Fontaine  (A.),  of  France:  Remarks  denying  refuting  contention  of  Mr.  Rowell 
(Canada)  that  resolution  of  Messrs.  Jouhaux  (France)  and  Baldesi  (Italy)  is 
out  of  order,  130. 

Gondra  (Dr.  M.),  of  Paraguay:  Supporting  resolution  of  Messrs.  Jouhaux  and 
Baldesi,  opposition  to  reduction  of  wages  by  reason  of  reduction  of  hours,  130. 
Jouhaux  (L.)  of  France  and  Baldesi  (G.),  of  Italy:  Joint  motion  against  reduc¬ 
tion  of  wages  by  reason  of  enforcement  of  the  8-hour  day  and  48-hour  week, 
presented,  128;  voted  on  and  carried,  170;  text  of  as  submitted,  267;  as  adop¬ 
ted,  276. 

Moore  (T.),  of  Canada:  Suggesting  conflict  between  motion  of  Messrs.  Jouhaux 
and  Baldesi  and  resolution  in  final  report  of  commission  on  hours  of  work,  129. 
Nolens  (Mgr.  W.  H.),  of  The  Netherlands:  Supporting  motion  of  Messrs.  Jou¬ 
haux  and  Baldesi,  170. .. 

Rowell  (Hon.  N.  W.),  of  Canada:  Opposed  to  motion  of  Messrs.  Jouhaux  and 
Baldesi  as  being  out  of  order,  130. 

WALDES,  H.,  (of  Czechoslovakia,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  24  (17),  123. 

WANG,  LINGOH,  (of  China,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30 (3),  28;  Oct.  31(4),30;  Nov.3 
(5),  33;  Nov.  4(6),  40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10  (10), 
77;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov.  20  (15),  107;  Nov. 
21  (16),  113;  Nov.  24  (17),  123;  Nov.  25  (18).  130;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21), 
157;  Nov.  27  (22),  167;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (  24),  187. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

WASHINGTON,  GEORGE.  Tribute  to,  by  Baron  Mayor  des  Planches  (Italy), 59. 

WEGMANN,  DR.  HENRY,  (of  Switzerland,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 
Representative  for  Mr.  Riifenacht  at  tenth  session,  67. 

Attendance:  Session  of  Nov.  20  (15),  107. 

Member:  Factory  inspectors’  provisional  committee,  158. 

WHITE  LEAD.  See  PLUMBISM. 

WHITE  PHOSPHORUS.  Finland’s  position  in  regard  to  use  of,  in  manufacture 
of  matches.  Letter  of  A.  H.  Saastamoinen  to  Secretary  General  of  confer¬ 
ence,  274. 

General  conference  of  International  Labor  Organization,  recommendation 
concerning  application  of  Bern  convention  of  1906,  voted  on  by  record  vote, 
carried,  183;  text  in  full,  264. 

International  Convention  1906,  at  Bern,  roll  of  member  countries  which  had 
not  adhered  to  convention  and  their  present  attitude.  171. 

- on  prohibition  of  use  of  white  phosphorus  in  match  industry,  resolution 

that  Conference  recommend  adherence  to,  motion,  Sir  Malcolm  Delevingne 
(Great  Britain)  171,  274;  voted  on  carried,  171. 

- text  of,  in  full,  255. 

Organizing  committee,  opinion  that  conference  should  recommend  adherence 
to  convention  of  all  states  members  of  the  league,  255. 

WILLIAMS,  HOWARD,  (of  Great  Britain,  adviser  to  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance :  Sessions  of  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  13  (12),  90;  Nov.  17  (13),  92. 

WILSON,  HON.  WILLIAM  BAUCHOP,  (of  the  United  States,  president  of  the  con¬ 
ference). 

Elected  permanent  president  of  conference,  28. 

Provisional  president  of  conference,  sessions  1-3, 11-28. 

Unable  to  preside  at  tenth  session,  67. 

Remarks:  Address  on  election  as  permanent  president,  28. 

- Address  of  welcome  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  11. 

- Closing  conference,  200. 

WOMAN  LABOR.  Agenda  for  Washington  conference,  13, 14. 

Maternity  protection  (see  that  title). 

Night  work:  Agenda  for  Washington  conference,  13,  14. 

- Argentine  law  of  1907  prohibits,  104. 

- - Commission  on  employment  of  women  before  and  after  childbirth,  on 

maternity  benefits  and  on  night  work  appointed,  39. 

- - Commission  on  employment  of  women  report,  majority,  on  employ¬ 
ment  of  women  at  night,  presented,  Miss  Smith  (Great  Britain),  102;  text 
of,  245;  debated  bv  Government  delegates  Dr.  Anastasi  (Argentina),  104; 
Mine.  Letellier  (France),  adviser,  105;  Dr.  Kamada  (Japan),  106;  Judge 
Castberg  (Norway),  103;  Mme.  Kjelsberg  (Norway),  adviser,  103;  M. 
Posada  (Spain),  105;  Mile.  Hesselgren  (Sweden),  adviser,  105;  employers’ 
delegates,  M.  Fraipont  (Belgium),  adviser,  104;  M.  Guerin  (France),  104; 
Mr.  Edstrom  (Sweden),  105;  workers’  delegates,  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  103; 
Mr.  Ilg  (Switzerland),  106.  • 

- amended,  M.  Gufirin  (France),  shift  system  for  women,  8  hours, 

with  hourrest  period, 4a.m.  to  10  p.m.,  proposed,  104,  269;  rejected,  107. 

- amended,  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy),  shift  system  for  women,  8  hours 

with  half  hour  rest,  8  a.m.  to  10  p.  m.,  proposed,  103,  269;  rejected,  107. 

- report, minority,  presented  by  Mme.  Casartelli  (Italy),  text  of,  246. 

— - general  conference  of  International  Labor  Organization  draft  conven¬ 

tion  adopted  by,  voted  on  by  record  vote,  agreed  to;  text  in  full,  260. 

- organizing  committee,  conclusions  that  conference  recommend  adher¬ 
ence  to  Bern  convention  of  1906,  of  all  States  members  of  the  league,  246. 
- Spanish  law;  remarks,  Mr.  Posada  (Spain),  105. 

Plumbism:  Commission  on  unhealthy  processes,  on  reference  to  plumbism  in 
report  of  Dr.  Legge  (Great  Britain),  98. 

- General  conference  of  International  Labor  Organization,  recommenda¬ 
tion  concerning  protection  of  women  against  lead  poisoning,  262. 

Unhealthy  processes:  Organizing  committee,  suggestions  and  recommenda¬ 
tions  for  international  action,  254. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes  as  applied  to  woman  labor,  ap¬ 
pointed,  39. 

WOOL  DISINFECTION,  ANTHRAX  AND.  See  Anthrax. 

WOOLEN  INDUSTRY.  Anthrax  legislation,  effect  of,  on  woolen  industry, 
remarks,  Dr.  Miall  (Great  Britain),  99. 


300 


INDEX. 


WORKERS’  DELEGATES.  Argentina:  Commission  on  credentials,  report, 
majority  (Delevingne)  and  minority  (Oudegeest),  on  protest  in  regard  to 
appointment  of  labor  delegate  (Balino),  207. 

Committee  on  credentials  suggests  procedure  for  appointment  of,  in  coun. 

trieshaving  no  representative  labor  organization,  110. 

Discrimination  against  workers’  delegates  implied  during  protest  against 

ftresident’s  ruling  in  refusing  the  floor  on  a  point  of  order,  Mr.  Ilg  (Switzer- 
and),  124. 

France:  Commission  on  credentials,  report  on  protest  in  regard  to  composition 
of  workers’  delegation  (Jouhaux),  206. 

Guatemala:  Commission  on  credentials,  report,  on  protest  in  regard  to  appoint¬ 
ment  of  labor  delegate  (Moreno),  207. 

Japan:  Commission  on  credentials,  report  on  protest  in  regard  to  procedure  of 
Japanese  Government  in  selection  of  labor  delegate  (Masumoto),  206. 

Erotest  against  method  pursued  by  Japanese  Government  in  selecting 
or  representative,  remarks,  Mr.  Mertens  (Belgium),  52. 

Members  of  committees,  commissions,  etc.:  Commission  on  applications  for  ad¬ 
mission  (India,  N.  Ml  Joshi,  substitute  for  S.  Gompers;  Italy,  G.  Baldesi; 
United  States,  S.  Gompers),  208. 

- commission  on  credentials  (Netherlands,  J.  Oudegeest),  206. 

- commission  on  employment  of  children  (Denmark,  P.  Hedebol,  substi- 

stitute  for  C.  F.  Madsen;  France,  M.  Lenoir,  substitute  for  L.  Jouhaux; 
Great  Britain,  M.  Bondfield,  substitute  for  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning;  India, 
N.  M.  Joshi;  Japan,  S.  Muto;  Norway,  J.  Vidnes,  substitute  for  Ole  Lian; 
Poland,  E.  Bernatowicz;  Spain,  F.  Largo  Caballero),  247. 

- commission  on  employment  of  women  (Belgium,  C.  Mertens;  Canada, 

P.  M.  Draper;  Czecho-Slovakia,  Mine.  Stivinova-Majerova;  France,  Mile. 
Bouvier;  Great  Britain,  Miss  MacArthur;  India,  N.  M.  Joshi;  Japan,  U. 
Masumoto),  243. 

- commission  on  special  countries  (Great  Britain,  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning; 

India,  N.  M.  Joshi;  Italy,  G.  Baldesi,  Dr.  Sacco  substitute;  Netherlands,  J. 
Oudegeest;  S.  T.  B.  Hui'nink  substitute;  Peru,  V.  A.  Pujazon;  South  Africa, 
A.  Crawford),  229. 

- commission  on  hours  of  work  (Belgium,  C.  Mertens;  Canada,  P.  M. 

Draper;  France,  L.  Jouhaux;  Great  Britian,  T.  Shaw;  Netherlands,  J. 
Oudegeest),  222. 

- committee  of  selection  (Belgium,  C.  Mertens;  France,  L.  Jouhaux; 

Great  Britain,  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning;  Netherlands,  J.  Oudegeest;  Spain, 
F.  L.  Caballero;  Sweden,  A.  H.  Lindqyist),  205. 

- commission  on  standing  orders  (Canada,  P.  M.  Draper;  Czecho-Slovakia, 

R.  Tayerle;  Switzerland,  C.  Ilg),  213. 


WORKERS’  DELEGATES— Continued. 

Members  of  committees,  commissions,  etc.:  Commission  on  unemployment 
(Belgium,  C.  Mertens,  G.  Solau  substitute;  Czecho-Slovakia,  R.  Tayerle; 
Denmark,  C.  F.  Madsen;  France,  G.  Dumoulin;  Great  Britain,  G.  li. 
Stuart-Bunning,  J.  Sexton  substitute;  Italy,  G.  Baldesi;  Japan,!'.  Masumoto, 
M.  Domae.  substitute;  Netherlands,  J.  Oudegeest;  P.  Serrarens,  substitute; 
Nonvay,  J.  Teigen;  United  States,  S.  Gompers.  P.  M.  Draper,  Canada, 
substitute),  233. 

- commission  on  unhealthy  processes  (Belgium,  C.  Mertens;  Canada,?.  M 

Draper;  France,  M.  Bidegaray;  Great  Britain,  G.  H.  Stuart-Bunning; 
Netherlands,  G.  Baas;  Spain,  L.  Araquistain;  Switzerland,  C.  Ilg),  251. 
Procedure  in  nomination  of,  t  o  be  studied  by  international  labor  office,  motion 
by  Mr.  Marino  Perez  (Cuba),  109. 

Protest  against  continual  objections  to  workers’  proposals,  Mr.  Baldesi  (Italy), 
124,  125. 

South  Africa:  Commission  on  credentials,  report  on  protest  in  regard  to  com¬ 
position  of  workers’  delegation  (Crawford),  206. 

YANG,  YUNG-CHING  (o/  China,  adviser  to  Government  delegates). 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  229. 

YUNG,  KWAI  (o/  China,  Government  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3), 28;  Oct-31  (4), 30;  Nov.  4 
(6),  40;  Nov.  5(7),  50;  Nov.  7  (9),  67;  Nov.  10(10),  77;  Nov.  12(111,85;  Nov. 
19  (14),  100;  Nov.  26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28 

(24) ,  187. 

ZAGLENICZNY,  JAN  (o/ Poland,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Oct.  29  (1,2),  19;  Oct.  30  (3),  28;  Nov.  3  (5), 33;  Nov.  4  (6), 
40;  Nov.  5  (7),  50;  Nov.  6  (8),  56;  Nov.  10  (10),  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  24 
(17),  123;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  2S  (24),  187;  Nov.  29 

(25) ,  201. 

Member:  Commission  on  special  countries,  67,  229. 

- commission  on  unemployment,  38,  234. 

ZUBIETA,  JOSE  A.  {of  Panama,  employers’  delegate). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  2  (5),  33;  Nov.  4(6),  40;  Nov.  5(7),  50;  Nov.  6(8), 
56;  Nov.  7  (9).  67;  Nov.  10  (10).  77;  Nov.  12  (11),  85;  Nov.  19  (14),  100;  Nov. 
26  (20),  146;  Nov.  26  (21),  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  187. 

ZUMETA,  CESAR  {of  Venezuela). 

Attendance:  Sessions  of  Nov.  25  (18),  130;  Nov.  25  (19),  138;  Nov.  26  (20),  147; 
Nov.  26  (21).  157;  Nov.  28  (23),  176;  Nov.  28  (24),  188. 


o 


BOSTON  COLLEGE. 
BUSINESS  ADMIN-  LIBRARY 


29836 


s 


/ 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 

COLLEGE  OF  BUSINESS  ADMINISTRATION 
LIBRARY 


/ 


CHESTNUT  HILL  67,  MASS. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may 
be  renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  re¬ 
served. 

Five  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  book 
^kept  overtime. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  ask  the 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  you. 

The  borrower  is  responsible  for  books  drawn 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the 
same. 


OEMCO 


